Wired Mesh

I laughed so hard at your childhood memory! I think you made an excellent point about the scapegoat issue of passion plays - one I'd not really considered before. I think I'll probably still see the movie, but I will keep that in my mind as I do. Excellent post.

You're a bloody brilliant individual.

Good observations on the intrinsic nature of Passion plays. If I understand correctly, in saying that "Passion plays are an intrinsically distancing form of religious art," you are implying that other forms of religious art are perhaps not so distancing. I can't argue with this. Still, I wonder if the failure of a Passion play to allow audience participation in the narrative is due, not so much to what it is, but to what it is not. A Passion play is not the preaching of the word. Preachng, by delving into the doctrinal foundations of the narrative, is able to bring to its hearers the realization of their participation in the text. It goes beyond the ability of many art forms to make the audience become participants. In these cases, the participation doesn't go beyond an emotional or psychological phenomenon. But preaching makes us aware that we already are participants in redemptive history. It does this in a way that even the reading of the Gospel accounts cannot.

This brings up another potential problem in Passion plays (which happens to be the same thing that the conservative Christians see as their greatest strength). They can be too faithful to the text and, thereby, miss the truth. It is a matter of historical record that Jews were responsible for insisting that Jesus be put to death. The Gospels do not downplay this. John makes constant references to "the Jews." These are rarely flattering. Nevertheless, he is giving an accurate depiction of what actually happened in history. A faithful dramatic presentation of the Gospel record will get this messsage across: Jews are bad.

But this isn't at all the point that the Evangelists are making. They are writing within the overall doctrinal narrative of scripture. The main story is about the war between the two seeds: that of the woman and that of the serpent. At the time of the crucifixion, the Jews are the historical representation of the serpent's seed. But this does not mean that Jews as an ethnic group are bad. Or, on the other side, God's election of Israel in the OT does not mean that the current state bearing that name is somehow his people. Likewise, Noah's curse of Ham's son Canaan should not have been used as a justification for slavery. There are also individual examples. The universal curse on the Hittites and Moabites does not prevent Uriah or Ruth from being counted among the faithful.

Preaching the Gospel texts can bring this out. The Jews do not have a simple correlation to Jews of today. They were in league with the serpent. Anyone today who rejects Christ, who is also in this league, must identify with the Jews of these narratives. Likewise, all those who have accepted Christ are also invited to see their participation in the narrative; they, however, stand in the role of Christ. Believers are crucifed, buried, raised to life, and seated in heaven with Christ. But in order for them to see this, it must be preached. History is essential to the Christian faith. Passion plays err in that they either make history the entire point, or they use it as an "objective" palette with which the viewers may draw their own conclusions.

Outstanding post. You definitely brought a perspective that I hadn't considered, and I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this controversial topic. I have read that Gibson made a strong effort to emphasize the Jewishness of Christ, but I guess that remains to be seen when the film is actually released.

I think to avoid an overemphasis on "us v. them" in the story, you would have to move away from a chronology that focused solely on the last days of Christ. You might have to go back as far as the garden, and include things like the Passover and Jesus' baptism by John. The problem is expressing the doctrinal reality that the crucifixion was God's plan and not just a sinful act brought about by non-believing Jews and Romans of that time. If you can get that across in a story -- on film -- and keep it emotionally engaging, you'd be a genius.

What a surprising, counter-intuitive post and argument. I have never, ever, though about this. I knew I was the enemy in the stories, but I've always just been more interested in these passion plays for bringing me more into contact with the historical Jesus - watching it all play out, much like the stories within the church on Sunday do. But you make a challenging argument.

Good post. Bravissimo!

If I understand Kevin correctly, he makes an important point that I think Mesh's post perhaps misses. As those who are "in Christ," we _ought_ to identify with Him. When He died, we died. When He was buried, we were buried. When He was raised to life, so were we.

When people are enraged at modern-day Jews after seeing the Passion, this is stupid. But it's not because they should be _identifying_ with the Jews who crucified Christ instead. Rather, it's because there isn't a one-to-one correlation between Israel then and Jews today.

The line of the antithesis no longer runs around a certain ethnic people as it ordinarily did then. Nevertheless, we still ought to identify with Christ as opposed to the seed of the serpent.

We should be humbled rather than enraged, not because "I would have crucified Him if I were there," but because "He was crucified on my behalf."

Kevin, correct me if I'm wrong....

Aaron's post is, in my opinion, an excellent example of writing that reveals a great deal of thought and insight on his part. Still, Nick has identified my one point of disagreement: as Christians, we should be identifying with Christ rather than with those who crucified him. Not the kind of identification where we imagine ourselves riding to his rescue, but the kind in which we see ourselves being crucified with him. Our crucifixion is not, however, as an innocent sacrifice, but as those who are justly condemned. The marvel of grace is seen in the fact that we have also been raised with Christ.

Never having seen a passion play, nor even realized their existence, I thought this Gibson film was just another crack at what the "Jesus" film is/was. Of all the words I've read concerning the controversy that is this film, I must say Aaron. Your post seemed to be the most honest one of them all.

There is part of me that thinks this piece is absolutely genius and another part that doesn't due to abstraction. Fundamentally, I think it abstracts the death of Jesus Christ. It is affirmed that Jesus was crucified by the Jews, but we seem to quickly run with a form of egalitarianism in making everyone equally guilty of this crime, which includes those of us existing 2,000 yrs. after the event. Even in Acts 2, Peter accuses the Jews gathered on Pentecost of crucifying Jesus, and he didn't quickly include himself as if to cause the other Apostles to question his orthodoxy or make sure others knew of his crime. I'm not sure of the root cause of this hermeneutic, but I think an overdose of Lutheranism is part of it. I have a good friend that wants to drive home an individuals responsibility for the death of Jesus Christ in every evangelistic setting. It usually includes something to the effect of, "It doesn't matter how many people you rape, kill or pillage, you are are responsible for the greatest crime in history, the death of Jesus. You killed him." It is this sort of abstraction that makes Christianity silly. Yet, there are elements of pure genius in this post and I agree with much of it.

Make sure you still have something worth wishing for.

So I do appreciate the post, and I'm interested in your take after the film. A dear friend and discerning man, Denis Haack, saw a screening and talked with Mr. Gibson after the film, and this is part of what Denis said:

"Mr Gibson said that his goal in making the film was to help people feel regret. 'We don't feel enough regret, he said. I can't speak for the others in The Art House that afternoon, but this is one reviewer for whom that goal was realized. And though it wasn't exactly enjoyable, I am more grateful than I can possibly express."

In that sense, I hope that this transcends the passion play's apologetic of simple respect and flim-flam sorrow. Is regret enough? Maybe not. Can this film function as a piece of art that at least causes people to consider the idea of regret as being based on a personal violation of some standard of behavior, some standard based in real-world narrative? I hope so.

I hope so too. I am skeptical, but I still hope.

I enjoyed reading all of your posts/replies. Very interesting to see and hear the opinions that are being brought forth by this work of spiritual art.

As a Roman Catholic, I am a firm believer in The Word and the canonical resources presented in what has apparently been used in the writing of The Passion (i.e.- "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" by St. Anne Catherine Emmerich). I do not place the blame for Christ's death at the feet of the Jews; rather, I take the hammer and nails and realize that it was me, and all of mankind, who placed Him on that piece of wood. Nothing that occured on Good Friday was a surprise. The entire scene was predestined and prophecized about (see Psalm 22). The door was opened for Him to be put to death-- the Jews and the Romans were the symbols of us kicking him out of it. For anyone to be inspired to injure or hate the Jews following this movie is simply ridiculous, for, if they had any sense, they would realize that Jesus a) was a Jew; b) came to preach a loving message, not a one that would cause His people to kill His people!

I will be seated in a movie theater the day this work comes out and will look forward to hearing the opinions brought forth after the world has had the chance to see the movie. God bless.

The things everyone here types and sayes is very nice. Everyone says "they dont see the jews at total fault". But if we look at history it doesnt play out this way for alot of people. There have been plenty of jews killed after passion plays in the past. The jews were always displayed as sub human and ugly. And the plays created a comtempt for the jews that still lived. What ever you want to belive about the plays or scripture they both have killed thousands of jews in crusades (since the crusaders would kill any jew in there way), in progroms about blood libles, and the holocost.
The Catholic church in spain was the first groupin history to use blood as a race distintion, and to be racist. In spain they had so many jews that were forced to become christian that the "old" christian faimlys passed laws to keep anyone with a grandparnt that was a jew to be a full part of the church. (hitler used the grandfather test as well). Even popes have been racist against the jews. Ive seen some of the houses around the vatican have there walls built out of jewish tomb stones, since the pope felt animals shoudn't have tomb stones.
The medivale gentile interpataion of jews books has casued much blood shed.

Aaron, I think your comments are helpful in that they direct us to a topic only briefly discussed above: the troublesome consequences of passion re-enactments.

Concerns unique to a passion play (or, in this case, film) are twofold: first, the narrative deals primarily with the suffering and resurrection of Jesus in the absence of theological or historical context. Questions about who Jesus was or what his incarnation ought to mean are subordinated to the story of his sacrifice. This makes the "regret" engendered by the story one with litte connection to a real understanding of Jesus or his self-described purpose. The response of a genuinely moved audience member, then, can be both emotionally profound and theologically deficient.

This theological paucity leads to the second concern unique to passion narratives: they stress guilt without clearly delineating the culpable. The pogroms you mentioned are just one historical outcome of this ill-defined trek down recrimination lane.

I don't imagine that American Jews have much to fear by way of Passion-induced violence. I do, however, worry that the vacuum of historical and theological context underlying Passion plays (and the seemingly nomadic guilt that accompanies them) will attend Mel Gibson's film, inviting the kind of rash and unclear responses on which anti-semitic movements feed.

I just thought it would be interesting to mention that one of my close friends, who happens to be Jewish by heritage and attends temple often with her family personally takes part in "The Story of Jesus" Passion play in Wauchula with me.

would like some info on tickets to the story of jesus. it has been about 10 years since i have seen it last. thanks sabrina

women don`t know you`re thinking about her. Doesn`t care you`re thinking about her. Makes you think about her even more

I think your story was a little ridiculous! I wander if you have read the Bible? You can't argue with scripture and the comment on your childhood memory made me laugh! I think you totally went to the play with a negative attitude and missed everything the story was trying to do...bring the lost to Christ!!! It doesn't matter who killed Jesus, what matters is that he died for our sins so get that in your head. I know the man who puts on that amazing play you refered to in your crack at Wauchula and I know he would never attack the Jewish people. I am offended that you would even write something and not know who are tearing apart in the process. Horrible article!!! Let it go man!