The Passion

Actually, that's been a critique of all Passion plays for quite some time: they cause us to identify with Christ instead of where we belong, the mob.

dang, that's some harshly cynical arrogance. or maybe arrogantly cynical harshness. perhaps cynically harsh arrogance? either way, it's not very nice.

and the early word from some reviews is generally that the movie does lead you to identify with the mob. we shall see.

I know Bob I know. Maybe I just shouldn't have said anything at all, regardless of whether or not it's true (or I think it is). Normally I argue for the masses and against erudite elitism (ask Mesh n' Andy, not that their erudite or elite), but this time, well, I didn't.

I thought the gospel encouraged us to identify with Christ's sufferings on the cross? Not in pity, of course, which is maybe what you meant? Still, I'm uncomfortable with the claim that guilt/shame is THE proper emotional response to the cross.

I don't suppose there are any iconoclastic Calvinists like me left who reject images and portrayals of Jesus as a violation of the 3rd comandment, are there?

I don't think it's wrong for us to sympathize with Jesus and be angry at the mob who is crucifying him. It seems like the story that Nathan told King David. David was meant to be angry at the rich man who took the poor man's lamb, even though that rich man was him. The thing I'm uncomfortable with here is this film being used as an evangelistic tool.

josiah,

have you checked out denis haack's response to an early viewing of the film? it's in the latest issue of critique, but not yet up on the website.

We'll have to wait and see. Gibson, interestingly, has stated repeatedly that the effect he's hoping the movie will have is to cause guilt among believers. And in reviews I've read so far, that seems to be a theme in the responses I keep hearing.

I don't know if I understand how the medium necessarily imprisons a dramatic retelling of the book of John into anti-semitism, though. I understand that historically, Christians used passion plays as a means of oppression of Jews, and so if you mean that the medium makes an honest retelling of the gospel impossible because historically, the persection's shadow stretches over the film, then I can understand that. But I don't understand how moving pictures of Jesus's life is inherently anti-semitic. That seems to elevate the word over the image, meaning that historical events can only be properly told and understood through literature as opposed to paintings, film or drama.

Anyhow, it seems like pre-judging the film's ability to properly convey anything is premature. We should see it, then judge its effectiveness. To my knowledge, I don't know of a film that has attempted to tell teh story of Jesus in such a design as to indict the viewer and make him/her feel responsibible for the death of Christ. Yet this is Gibson's expressed intent, so I personally am intrigued to see how an experienced, well-funded, director tries to do it. Even if he fails, I'd be curious to see why he fails. Is there something phenomenologically antisemitic about the crucifiction? Obviously not. But why would it have to be this way for a movie? Why a movie and not when we actually read the gospels themselves? I suspect that what Mesh was talking about has as much to do with historical context and social conditioning, and less to do with the inherent limitations of the medium.

So the Passion is uninspired, and should not be considered remotely near to the Word. Christians and the church have probably been creating such reinactments for centuries. The difference now? It is being directed by a movie star, and is being produced for the movie-going audience. In both cases the reinactment is used to evangelize to the audience.

Taking it a step further... couldn't we consider this as a bible commentary produced in a different format? From what I have heard, Gibson has done an excellent job bringing in a group of *Bible elders* to make sure that the film is scripturally correct.

Nat, I'm with you (though I think you mean the 2nd commandment). In several "Passion" discussions with other solid Covenant grads, I have been surprised that this 2nd-comm issue has not even come up.

Why hasn't it?

Personally I don't feel the issue of the 2nd commandment, specifically its application, is a black and white one. "Any graven image of any likeness in heaven above..." I mean, that could apply to a bazillion things, and I just don't feel confident about it in an iconoclastic sense.

I certain we should worship anything other than Christ, that I'm for sure about. Now should we not have a movie with somebody playing Christ in it? That's a bit more difficult, at least in my opinion. I respect folks who feel that way, I just don't respect it as an easy answer out of the situation.

And heck, we Christians aren't known for comming up with theological systems & assertions enabling quick-answer responses now are we? But that's not the issue either.

Loathe as I am to diverge from dearest friend and overall-smart-guy Jesse, I think the 2nd Commandment (although there is some debate over whether it is actually the first, second, or third, depending on how you linguistically divide them up) would have more relevance to Israel under the Old Covenant than Mel Gibson, or us for that matter.

There have been at least two very good efforts (Bill Baldwin and Misty Irons) at providing a New Covenant argument vs. images of Jesus, so I'm inclined to lean toward that camp, but I'm just ambivalent enough not to be dogmatic on that particular issue.

Gibson showed the film to a group of average film buffs in Texas, and the resounding consensus was that it was (a) a remarkable film, and (b) not anti-Semetic. The viewers ranged from committed atheists to agnostics to lapsed Catholics, but they all claimed it wasn't anti-Semetic.

I have something against people who are committed to a point of view on a film before they see it. But beyond that, how dare you claim superiority over "average" Christians. It's as if you are claiming they can't think for themselves or make up their own minds, but you, oh high and mighty intellectual blogger, can make rational decisions.

You are no smarter than I am. I am no smarter than they are. Have a little faith in your fellow Christians to see things rationally and decently. The age of the aristocrat is past. We are all equal before God. Act that way.

Hey, you forgot that you're not smarter than me, and I'm not smarter than them, and John Totten is only half jewish.

I always found myself more drawn to an oligarchy, 'cause there aren't enough cool big words that start with o, like Ostrich, or Orthogonal, Obstetrics. Ok, maybe there are enough cool words that start with O.

ochlocracy

personally all of you are retarded history and especially art evidence that dates back to antiquity can attest the illigitimacy of jesus being a diety, you wear crosses on your neck as if jesus was the only person killed on a cross that was the ritual capital punishment back then many people were killed that way and gibson is portraying a vision of a saint emmerick's perception on the gospels so its not even based on the gospels thats like wearing a cross now are people going to wear little electric chairs on their necklaces? worshiping someone just to gain political power some people in this world are just so naive faith is for the weak the weak who need to believe in something to assure their belonging in something to feel a sense of reassurance that really isnt there think about this "christian" means messaiah follower/believer if jesus came back today he would think all of you were insane but because hes not having a second coming and hes not god or the son of god youre wasting your time and youre showing your weakness you spend your whole life worrying about what will happen to you when you die but the truth is youre going in the ground no one knows what happens to you maybe animals eat you in your grave maybe youre so naive that youre blinded by these cultistic lies that are made up to generate political power and strength maybe you should research your "history" a little better and search the sources that tell the real TRUTH not what your "bible" says try actual events the evidence may be hidden or hard to find because people dont want to admit the truth but youll one day hopefully see the "light" do you honestly want to go to a "heaven" where the guy who raped you and killed your mother is in just because "jesus" or god forgives him? thats a bit sick id rather rot and burn in hell than be in a place such as that, fantasize all you want but to the intellectuals of the world you are all a bunch of weak fools that will never accept the truth because you dont want to admit your whole lives and believe systems are based on a fabricated story yes jesus was crucified but hes not a diety hes not divine hes not going to save you look at the world its corrupt and lacks a single place of honesty theres even corruption in your churches you can go kill someone and then go to church and feel better no one can save you of jesus was the messiah then why is the world so sinful so deadly so dangerous why is the population of the world corrupt lying cheating horrible people its cynical but its the damn flat out truth you believe in your silly fables but you dont even obide by your rules the ten commandment hah! you dont even follow them one of the commandments is do not murder and you interpret it as do not kill!! that is the biggest mis-translation you have it all wrong but i guess most do have it all wrong bc religion is for the weak for the fools who NEED something to believe in maybe you should start seeing the truth to this doomed corrupt unpleasant world