|
I have had mixed feelings since
seeing the movie Monday night (February 16). On the one hand,
it was a great *movie*, surely ending the pseudo-accolades
that have been given the poorly produced/acted “Jesus film”
the past 25 years (good-bye, “Jesus film” :-)). The Gibson
product lived up to the hype and then some, and what with all
the
pre-release hub-bub of
the past few months, Gibson will make some in Hollywood wish
they had been more congenial with their distribution
abilities. Just two days ago, the film’s current distributor
increased the number of opening screens by 40%, almost
guaranteeing a
blockbuster debut on
Wednesday.
Like others who’ve been to the
pre-screenings around the country, I too was moved, gripped,
disturbed (the flogging scene will make some ill… I wouldn’t
advise a child see this) and emotive. The 6000 who saw the
film at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in
Charlotte Monday night filed out of the ballroom in stunned
silence, too drained to speak. Who cannot ponder the Father’s
wrath vented on the Son in vicarious atonement without
emotion? The sights and sounds (the soundtrack is superb and
more than likely is headed for its own windfall) will not soon
be forgotten, Gibson the producer having accomplished his task
of indelible impression.
The violence is both believable
and unbelievable at the same time. “Believable” because of
the historical record in the gospels. “Unbelievable” because
we evangelicals have sanitized the cross of its suffering to
the point where the picture presented by The Lord’s Table is
no longer shocking and our gospel is no longer offensive. The
movie may be a healthy dose of “reality” for those who have
been guilty of trivializing and moralizing the cross.
And it’s the implications of that
violence inherent to “The Christ Event” that make the film
controversial… and not coincidentally, for the very same
implications of the violence that the cross has been an
offense for almost 2000 years. If the history of the “Jesus
film” is understood as precedence (especially in third world
and Muslim countries), someone(s) will die because of “The
Passion of the Christ”.
But Gibson the theologian is a
little more disconcerting. I’m not sure that evangelicalism
knows the heavy dose of Catholicism it is about to receive via
an embedded theology in the storyline. I’ve read many of the
reactions in the
news reports and websites of evangelical pastors and
others who have seen the film in California, Chicago and
Florida. I was disappointed to find what has been passed off
as “artistic license” is not that, but is sound, Catholic
theology flying in under our “artistic license” radar.
Evangelicals are passing it off unwittingly as “artistic
license”, because evangelicals have no clue what is the
content of Marian theology. Only one review I read, by Family
Life’s
Bob Lepine, identified some of the Catholic elements to
the movie.
My initial reflection on the
film, in my seat before leaving the hall, is that I had been
witness to Mel Gibson’s mass (those thoughts were reinforced
later in the week in a
commentary published by Zenit.org, a Catholic news
outlet. Upon seeing the film, Catholic journalist Vittorio
Messori suggests: “This film, for its author, is a Mass…”)
It’s too early to tell, but it could be that the legacy of
this movie is its value to the Catholic community.
As Lepine pointed out, there can
be no mistaking the flashbacks to the breaking of the bread
while Christ is nailed to the cross as Gibson ties the
crucifixion to the Eucharist. This in itself is not so
offensive insofar as the Table “remembers” Christ’s redemption
accomplished and applied. The Eucharist understood as the
Catholic Mass becomes more pointed in the incessant beating of
the Marian drum through the entirety of the movie. As
one moviegoer has put it: “I’ll never look at Mass the
same way again”, although I would grant one might never look
at the Table the same way again. Nor can there be the
mistaking of the stations of the cross (I counted Christ
falling down five? times along the Via Dolorosa), a staple to
the Catholic church’s Passion week.
There are four fundamental flaws
in the theology of the movie that should not be allowed to fly
under our radar, especially if we are intent (and for good
reason, IMHO) on using the film as a catalyst for evangelism.
The first is Mary as co-redemptrix. Gibson goes to great
pains to make sure that Mary is covered in blood before the
end of the movie. In fact, the lasting image of the movie in
my mind is not Christ hanging on a cross, but bloody Mary
hanging on to her son. Yes, I’ve read the some of the
responses from others who have seen the movie: what mother
would not follow after and grieve for her son? Is not the
film merely capturing the broken heart of the mother?
Hardly. Having denied Christ
three times, a despondent and repentant Peter falls at “the
Mother’s” feet (Mary is continuously referred to as “Mother”
in the movie) and asks for her pardon. Describing Mary’s
futile attempt to wipe up the blood from the scourging,
one Catholic commentator says, “Theologians will also note
here Mary's appreciation for Jesus' precious blood…” Gibson
then parallels the movements of Mary and Satan along the Via
Dolorosa, two alter egos, with Mary as Christ’s comfort during
Satan’s final “temptation”. Per co-redemptrix theology, Mary
“suffers” with Christ at the trial, along the Via Dolorosa and
at the foot of the cross, to the point of uttering the co-redemptrix
mantra through blood-stained lips: “Would that I could die
with you.” (my paraphrase). Concisely put: those who think
the storyline tracking Mary is merely artistic license in
capturing the grief of Christ’s mother are grossly
underestimating Marian co-redemptrix theology.
The second flaw is a little more
subjective and subtle than the overt Marian theology and has
more to do with the film’s affect on the viewer. The movie
leaves the audience emotionally drained, IMHO, not as much
because of the crucifixion itself, but because of a scourging
that seemed at the time interminable. The flogging scene
dwarfs the crucifixion in terms of time spent in the movie,
intensity, and suffering. This, too, is historical Catholic
theology and is grounded in the suffering of the Mass. The
importance of the Mass is its suffering, rather than the
death, although the sacrifice is perpetually made in the
Mass. The audience has little doubt that Gibson’s focal point
in the movie is the flogging and unfortunately this minimizes
the importance of the suffering of the Son on the cross.
Gibson’s myopic treatment of the
scourging puts the crucifixion in the anti-climax and
unfortunately undermines the highest point of suffering in the
entire passion: the father’s rejection of the son. This is
the suffering of the garden and it is the suffering of the
cross. By shifting the focus from the cross to the flogging,
the Father’s rejection of the Son and its centrality to the
crucifixion is nearly lost (save the obligatory, “My God, My
God” that is in the text and, therefore, in the movie). Lost
completely (per Catholic theology) is the reality that God
killed his Son (see John Piper’s statements below).
The end result of this shift in
focal point of the story is that the audience is led to pity
Christ, rather than see themselves as the persecutors. Gibson
wants us to pity Christ in the scourging. Unfortunately,
inherent to pity is condescension of the viewer toward the
subject of the suffering. If we do this in the soteric realm,
the result is damnation. We must not pity Christ. To do so
is a failure to be poor in spirit. It is a failure to see
myself as the deserved subject of the punishment that Christ
took on my behalf. Vicarious atonement and the justice of God
that it serves leaves no place for pity.
While the Marian and suffering
theology is to be expected of a good Catholic, the third flaw
nearly sinks the movie. The movie is around 2 hours and 5
minutes long. Of that time, less than a minute is devoted to
the resurrection at the end of the movie. All suffering, all
crucifixion, a little resurrection. Voila! Gibson gives the
resurrection the same short shrift that the Mass has been
giving the resurrection for centuries. Unfortunately, this
too is passing under the radar. Jody Dean, a television news
anchor in Dallas
writes: “The Resurrection scene is perhaps the shortest in
the entire movie - and yet it packs a punch that can't be
quantified. It is perfect.” This kind of statement reflects a
collective neglect of resurrection doctrine by the evangelical
community.
Even the Reformed community is
not immune.
Richard Gaffin points out that the Reformation’s concern
was to “make clear that the death of Christ is not simply an
ennobling example to be imitated but a substitutionary,
expiatory sacrifice that reconciles God to sinners and
propitiates his judicial wrath. In short, the salvation
accomplished by Christ has become virtually synonymous with
the atonement. This concentration on the death of Christ has
no doubt been necessary. But as a consequence the doctrinal or
saving significance of his resurrection has been largely
overlooked. All too frequently it has been considered
exclusively as a stimulus and support for Christian faith
(which it surely is) and in terms of its apologetic value, as
the crowning evidence for Christ's deity and the truth of
Christianity in general.”
Between Romanism’s perpetual
crucifixion of Christ in the Mass and the evangelical’s
neglect of the resurrection, Gibson’s mere “tip of the hat” to
resurrection becomes a monumental flaw. The net effect of
giving no more than a minute to the resurrection in a two-hour
movie is a presentation that is only a “part” of the gospel
rather than the whole. Or to put it another way, despite
Gibson’s brief inclusion of the resurrection at the end of the
movie as a segue into the credits, the net effect is as if he
had not presented the resurrection.
Granted, across the course of
human history, the crucifixion and resurrection are one and
the same Christ event (which would include his birth… the
beginnings of Christ’s sufferings). Yet redemptive history is
revealed as a story with a necessary chronological flow that
belies the eschatology of the event. It is in the
resurrection that Christ defeated Satan and death (Satan
bruised Christ’s heel – death, but Christ crushed Satan’s head
– resurrection; Genesis 3:15… which is the backdrop for the
memorable incident in Gibson’s Gethsemane), becoming the
rightful heir to the Davidic throne from which he now rules
(Acts 13:32, 33; Romans 1:2,3). Because sin and death have
been conquered, the resurrection is both the apex and the
vortex of human history. It is that point of human history
when time, to quote C. S. Lewis, “start(ed) working backward”
(The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe).
Without the resurrection, there
is no “new creation”. It is in the resurrection that our
quickening is grounded and our resurrection to consummation in
Christ is guaranteed. What the crucifixion is to
justification, the resurrection is to regeneration. Because
of the resurrection, Christ’s people are no longer under
condemnation, but are raised to new life. Of its
significance, Geerhardus Vos explains the resurrection as that
“epochal event” of human history that “signifies in fact the
most radical and all-inclusive transforming event within the
entire range of the believer’s experience of salvation”. The
resurrection is “equivalent to ‘becoming a new creation’…” (Geerhardus
Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pg. 150). We are, as
Paul Beasley-Murray puts it, “Easter people.” (PBM, The
Message of the Resurrection, pg.17), and it will be up to
Easter people to fill in the Resurrection story and
implications of the resurrection in the wake of this glaring
“omission”.
Providing the apologetics of the
resurrection points to the fourth flaw in this movie: Gibson
does very little to explain *why* Christ died. I recollect
only one mention… the Isaiah 53 passage and subsequent
Gethsemane scene that opens the movie is the first and only
allusion to the *why* of the story. Here, Gibson borrows from
"The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ", an accounting
of the “visions” of the 18th century Catholic mystic Anne
Catherine Emmerich (in the dialogue between Christ and Satan:
“Satan, writes Emmerich, addressed Jesus "in words such as
these: 'Takest thou even this sin upon thyself? Art thou
willing to bear its penalty? Art thou prepared to satisfy for
all these sins?’” - from
David Neff’s review.), and along the way, the sins of the
world are proposed as purpose. But this scene is the only
scene in which there is any semblance of purpose given to
Christ’s suffering and death. Gibson spends time filling out
other details of the Christ story with flashback vignettes,
but chose not to do so in explaining the purpose of Christ’s
death.
In his various media interviews,
Gibson has elaborated on his own answer, suggesting that it
was necessary for Christ to deal with the “sin problem”,
telling an audience after one of the screenings: “To
forgive human sin, there had to be a blood sacrifice", and in
his
radio interview with Focus on the Family’s James Dobson,
said: “It's really obvious from the first frames of the film
that (Jesus' death is) a pre-ordained and divine plan…That
means the Almighty had this all figured out to put into effect
at this time with His Son."
John Piper, who screened the film
earlier this year, said this past week in Charlotte that
evangelicals must provide the *why* that the film does not or
else miss out on a golden opportunity to proclaim the gospel
of Jesus Christ. In his book that gives 50 answers to the
question of *why* Christ died,
“The Passion of Jesus Christ”, Piper says: “When all is
said and done, the most crucial question is: Why? Why did
Christ suffer and die?” (Answering the most controversial
question surrounding this movie, Piper says: “The ultimate
answer to the question, Who crucified Jesus? is: God did.)
Christians must be prepared to
give an answer as to *why* Christ died in the wake of so
little being said in the movie itself, and in fact, Christians
must be prepared to provide the question itself. I could be
wrong, but with the movie providing so little in the way of
purpose outside of the Gethsemane scene, the collective
response of our postmodern moviegoer will most likely be a
shrug of the shoulders: “so what?” The image is the appeal to
the postmodern. Without an interpretive paradigm, the
moviegoer is left to interpret the story as he or she sees fit
(insert Gibson’s universalistic statements from his
Diane Sawyer interview on Monday night… when Sawyer poses
the question as to whether Gibson’s “traditionalist view bar(s)
the door to heaven for Jews, Protestants, Muslims”, Gibson
responds: “That is not the case at all—absolutely not. It is
possible for people who are not even Christians to get into
the kingdom of heaven. It’s just easier and I have to say this
because that’s what I believe...” This universalism is a
stark contrast to what Gibson told Peter Boyer of the
New Yorker last fall when he said “There is no salvation
for those outside the Church.”). This is especially the case
without a full-orbed resurrection story, because the
crucifixion-resurrection is one of those few events in human
history that is self-interpretive (see
Vos’ Inaugural Address: “They would speak even if left to
speak for themselves”). Part of the gospel is present, albeit
in Catholic packaging. Given the fact that Gibson and the
Romanists haven’t gotten the gospel right since at least Trent
(1545-1563), that leaves the responsibility of the
proclamation (again) to evangelicals.
Does this mean there is no
redemptive value to the movie, even to the point it cannot be
used in evangelism? IMHO, no. Even the mass has a kernel of
truth. Gibson was faithful to the historicity of Christ’s
death and resurrection, the common agreement between
Protestant and Catholic. And to his credit, he is putting
Christ’s death in front of the postmodern culture, with the
same “in your face” attitude that made him a box office “icon”
(pun intended…:-)) in an attempt to force the Jesus issue that
every living creature must eventually face.
Despite the Roman Catholicity of
the movie, it is the *Event* with which we have been entrusted
that we proclaim. And what is common between the film and
that entrustment we must proclaim. When is the gospel no
longer the gospel? The answer to that question won’t be
resolved in this movie.
Since I do not believe the second
commandment (even as applied in the New Covenant) is an issue
in the portrayal of Christ, IMHO, viewing the film is no more
problematic than viewing Lethal Weapon or Braveheart. But it
would be disappointing if those who believe such a
presentation is a 2nd commandment violation, while not viewing
the movie per their conscience, also fail to use the movie to
speak to the postmodern culture that is the circumstantial
context for the release of the movie. One need not condone
the making, showing, or viewing of the movie in order to use
it as a tool for Christ’s sake. And one need not embrace the
relativistic “end justifies the means” mentality of
contemporary evangelicalism in order to explain the *why* to
the culture. The numbers at the box office already suggest
that Gibson’s movie is more than a Catholic presentation of
Christ’s death. It has now become a cultural phenomenon (and
an evangelical fad, to boot) demanding answers from an
objective reality found only in Christ.
The church is shirking its
entrustment, IMHO, if it not ready to give an answer. It’s
one of those built-in opportunities for confronting Americana
with Jesus. I’m not suggesting that evangelical Christians
shouldn’t see this movie. Nor am I suggesting that the
American church should not use this movie as a tool for
evangelism (although resisting the schmamby pamby rush to gush
over this movie as is evident in much of evangelicalism is a
*good* thing… :-)). What I am suggesting is that
evangelicals… especially in the reformed camp…in preparing to
give that answer, need to be aware of the Catholic elements
and shortcomings of the movie, rather than writing them off as
mere “artistic license”. IOW, we should know what we’re
getting into. :-) And more broadly, it’s a call for
evangelicals to bring discernment to the apologetic table in
confronting our post-modern culture, not to mention our
Catholic neighbors and co-workers.
The impact on me personally was
that I deserved what Christ received. It should have been me
chained to the flogging post. It should have been me hanging
in between the two thieves. I didn't get (and won't get) what
I deserve. An innocent man became sin and took my punishment.
God killed Christ instead of me.
And instead, I was the Roman
soldiers mocking Christ with a purple robe. I was the Roman
soldiers who took pleasure in beating the Creator. I was the
pious Pharisees conniving to get rid of Christ. This is what
I thought about last Monday night and this is why I too, was
silent leaving the hall.
But those thoughts I brought with
me in my own theological grid to the movie. I "imputed" those
thoughts onto the screen because I understand what was truly
going on. The postmodern mind does not come to the movie with
that grid nor does the movie provide that necessary grid for
the postmodern. Variety’s Todd McCarthy
notes this dichotomy in audiences: “(The picture's)
notoriety might soon be mitigated for mainstream audiences by
word of mouth centered on the prolonged suffering and very
vivid gore; at the same time, many true believers ... will be
deeply moved. ..." IOW, the postmodern mind will not get far
past the violence and the suffering and it will be those who
already “believe” who get the movie’s full effect.
The *only* true value in the
movie for the postmodern is what we, the evangelicals who have
the entrustment of the gospel, provide in the wake of the
movie for the postmodern. The movie itself is not enough.
Nor do I believe the movie itself is enough to bring someone
to a saving knowledge of Christ... unless there has been some
semblance of the gospel (planting of the seed) given to that
person in the past. This is why John Piper was emphatic that
evangelicals provide the *why* to the movie.
Anti-semitism? “The Passion of
the Christ” is no more anti-semitic than the unadulterated
Word (bit of production humor: while the screening I viewed
“seemed” to not include the Pharisaical declaration, “his
blood be on us and our children”, the scene had not been
“cut”… only the subtitles explaining the Aramaic being spoken
on the screen had been deleted… kudos to Gibson). While
Christians should have answers for the anti-semitism charge,
evangelicals should recognize that the issue will always be a
given as long as the Jewish people group kick against the
gospel goads. As
R. Albert Mohler Jr. puts it, “At the bottom of all of
this lies antipathy toward the Christian Gospel, the four New
Testament Gospels and the "scandal of particularity" that lies
at the core of the Christian faith.”
Gibson’s Passion has also proven
to be a diversion: a movie that portrays “The Gospel of John”
in a word for word adaptation (akin to the “Jesus Film” which
used Luke)
has already been released around the country. “The Gospel
of John” has flown beneath the radar in the wake of “The
Passion of the Christ”, despite the fact that it’s John’s
gospel, the Apostle John’s use of “the Jews”, and Johannine
theology that has historically been blamed for anti-semitism.
There’s no way Gibson’s movie is as “anti-semitic” as “The
Gospel of John” or any other movie that purports to be word
for word (if ”The Gospel of John” is as close to the Johannine
text as its producers claim, its lack of Marian theology may
prove more palatable to evangelicals in the long run.)
Christians best defuse such charges 1. by seeing themselves as
the Pharisees and Romans, then proclaiming the gospel as
forgiven Pharisees and Romans, and 2. by proclaiming, with
Piper, that God killed Christ (Isaiah 53:10; Romans 8:32;
Romans 3:25).
Some will say this is a Hollywood
Jesus. Some have already said this is an idolatrous Jesus.
It certainly is a Catholic Jesus. On 2800 screens this Ash
Wednesday, “Christ” will be crucified. Mel will continue to
be vilified. The world will be mystified. Hollywood or not,
idolatrous or not, Catholic or not, the cross remains an
offense. The slaughtered Lamb who holds the scroll of human
history (Rev. 5) is at once the world’s judgment and our
salvation. Despite the theological and philosophical
differences on how best to address this film in our culture,
let us now and always glory in the cross and resurrection of
Christ.
Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH |
