Why did Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ move some to conversion or repentance while leaving others cold? While acknowledging that a plethora of personal, relational and cultural factors contribute to the manner in which any individual receives a movie, this piece contrasts two possible responses. First it considers the response of those who buy into a theology of substitutionary atonement. This group includes most Evangelical Christians and also the “unchurched” who are often familiar with the assumption that “Jesus died for our sins” and have not subjected this position to critical reflection. Second, I consider the reaction of those who have reservations about models of atonement rooted in vicarious blood-letting and either reject or qualify such theologies. This group, I will argue is more likely to experience The Passion as horror movie than as a call to repentance.
There may be a curious sense in which Evangelical Christians and the “unchurched” are both likely to endorse a theology of substitutionary atonement, that is, the view that Jesus died to pay a debt incurred for all humankind by the sin of Adam and Eve. Evangelicals generally reject other models of redemption while the unchurched are often unaware of the theological alternatives. While defending himself against the charge of anti-Semitism, Gibson revealed his thinking on blood atonement. Gibson was asked about the choice to maintain in the script the words from Matthew’s Gospel, "His blood upon us and on our children!" (Mt. 27:25) but not to include this line in the subtitles. Gibson’s response was:
"I wanted it in. My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house. They'd come to kill me." (The New Yorker, September 7, 2003, Perri Dorset)
On another occasion, Gibson elaborated with regard to this passage:
"It's one little passage, and I believe it, but I don't and never have believed it refers to Jews, and implicates them in any sort of curse. It's directed at all of us, all men who were there, and all that came after. His blood is on us, and that's what Jesus wanted." (Terry Lawson, "Mel Gibson and Other ‘Passion’ Film-makers say the Movie was Guided by Faith", Detroit Free Press, 2004).
Hence Gibson sees his audience as in some sense responsible for the violence on screen. Gibson claimed that the made the movie primarily with the unchurched in mind, a group for whom the guilt-trip might evoke “prodigal” pasts. (Leslie Smith, Living in the World but not of the World Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press, 2004, p. 47)
To be fair, atonement theology takes many forms including St. Anselm’s theory of substitutionary atonement wherein God is no sadist baying for blood but a rather impotent deity constrained by some cosmic version of the feudal honor code from forgiving the sin of humanity. In contrast, some models of substitutionary atonement in modern fundamentalism purport to know the will of a God who preordained the suffering and death of Jesus. Such views persist in contemporary ultra-conservative Catholicism, for example, in the work of Scott Hahn. The point for this movie is that such theology can lead to the conviction that ones own sins somewhat contributed to one of those lashes, blows, nails, thorns or falls.
The irony is that for the vast majority of viewers, Jesus’ blood sacrifice was, in Gibson’s view, ineffective. Peter J. Boyer's “The Jesus War: Mel Gibson & "The Passion" (9-15-03) identifies a source of major dissension that was swept under the shroud. Boyer writes:
"I told Gibson that I am a Protestant, and asked whether his pre-Vatican II world view disqualified me from eternal salvation. " He paused. 'There is no salvation for those outside the Church,' he said. 'I believe it.' He explained, 'Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”
On a related note, whether or not the Passion can fairly be described as anti-Semitic, Gibson’s remarks may indicate the eschatological fate he imagines to lie in store of Jews. Gibson rejects Vatican Two’s Declaration on the Church’s Relation to Non-Christian Religion (Nostra Aetate). Still, presumably Gibson grants salvation for Jews like Miriam of Nazareth a.k.a. Mary the Mother of God, Cephas Son of Zebedee a.k.a. St. Peter, the other apostles and the patriarchs and prophets of the Hebrew Bible. At least, Gibson concedes Resurrection to Jesus –Bar –Joseph from Nazareth.
I posit that the movie may be received very differently by those who either reject or significantly qualify theologies of blood atonement. Such positions include those that locate the savific value of Jesus death in its moral example, those who emphasize the value of Jesus’ life and who see the cross as the culmination of evil, rather than of God’s will, and those who appeal to the Biblical understanding of blood sacrifice as celebratory, reuniting blood (signifying life) with the giver of life. Those who embrace the insights of the thrust of modern biblical scholarship are unlikely to view Jesus’ death as payment for the personal sins of a historical Adam and Eve or for any individual living or deceased. Some might point to the role of systemic/ institutional/ social sin in bringing about the death of Jesus. These and other interpretations of the death of Jesus other than substitutionary atonement are not conducive to a personal guilt-trip. Indeed for viewers so persuaded, the movie may hold more in common with the genre of the horror-movie. By contrast, it could be argued that the Evangelical audience is likely to be less au fait with horror movies and hence less prone to the conditioned stock-responses to which that genre can give rise.
This movie exhibits elements of the two sub-genres of “slasher” movie and supernatural thriller. The movie out-bleeds most slasher movies, arguably numbing the viewer to its effects. A classification of the movie as a supernatural thriller reflects a Satanic presence, manifested in apparently feminine form, arguably impelling the relentless assault on Jesus. Indeed, Jesus’ adversaries, Roman and Jewish behave as though possessed, their apparent delight in unspeakable violence otherwise inexplicable. A legion of demons infests the movie, its presence sometimes ambiguous as to whether an objective manifestation or the subjective nightmare of a character is being conveyed.
It was my initial intention to make the claim that a movie received as a horror-movie must fail to move the religious sensibilities of a media-savy audience. However it may be fairer to say that a bad horror movie cannot move religious sensibilities. This qualification may be appropriate since, in the sub-genre of the supernatural thriller, particularly those concerned with the battle between Christians and oppression by supernatural evil, some powerful movies are to be found. The last bastion of the “hero priest” may be in this subgenre. This is be true to some extent for The Exorcist (1973, William Friedkin) but, even more so, I would argue for The Possession of Emily Rose (2005, Scott Derrickson,) and The Rite (2011, Mikael Håfstrom) both movies claiming some basis in actual cases (as is also the case for The Exorcist) These movies testify to the courage and selflessness of the exorcists who are inspirational, Christ-like figures and fully developed characters with whom the viewer might empathize. Even zombie movies, notably Twenty-Eight Days Later (2002, Danny Boyle) can, albeit rarely, poignantly rehearse the nobleness of self-sacrifice in the face of hopeless adversity. This acknowledgment of the religious possibilities conceivably possible in the genre broadly termed “horror” may be all the more damning for The Passion.
In conclusion, it may be for the following reasons that The Passion fails to move the religious sensibilities of many: (1) Critical thinking kicks in, raising questions about the salvific value of blood-letting so that a visceral reaction is supplanted by an intellectual one. (2) The excessive blood and violence approach the farcical and numbs the sensibilities of the viewer. (3) The lack of character development inhibits identification with a credibly human Jesus. (4) Absent also is the development of an agenda of hatred, making it difficult to comprehend the motives of Jesus’ torturers. Instead we witness mindless brutality by an array of ghouls who seem to have strayed off the set of Dawn of the Dead to which The Passion would yield its box-office position. (5) Any depiction of intelligible human motivation seems to be replaced by an implied supernatural influence. (6) The “slasher” element and the “exorcist” element combine so that some receive the work as a horror movie. With some notable exceptions, the conventions of the horror movie offer a safe distance between viewer and action so that the savy viewer is unlikely to be cut to the core, each time the zombie’s devour another victim. The movie may offer an effective guilt-trip for those who believe their personal sins contributed to the execution of Jesus. On the other hand, for those who relate the events upon which the movie is based to institutional evil and moral complexity, the mise-en-scène is too remote from their concerns to evoke much more than distaste at the spectacle of an hour-long slaughter.
I wanted to take a moment to comment on alternatives to 'blood-atonement theology,' particularly as portrayed in this film. From the very same story this film draws on there can be a few radically different understandings of atonement.
ReplyDelete'There is power in the blood of Jesus.' This phrase has become uniquely ubiquitous in Christianity through hymns, and evangelical books. One could venture to say that American Christianity and popular has almost adopted this line as its creedal statement.
Sure, there is power in the blood, but how, why, and in what sense? Womanist theology in particular (theology from an African-American, woman's perspective) rejects the understanding of a surrogate Jesus who suffers, is mutilated, abused, and dies so that we are expunged of our guilt. Such understandings of Jesus' blood seem to reflect more of abusive relationships and marginalization than love.
There is power in the blood of Jesus, that is for sure, but not because of Jesus' sufferings. The fact that Jesus was tortured to death in Gibson's film does not make the activity of Jesus any more salvific. The salvific and power of Jesus' blood cannot be located in his violent murder, but in his life, death, and resurrection.
Jesus' blood has power because it is the blood of his life; his presence and activity in the world. In dying on the cross Jesus was met with ultimate hatred, yet Jesus remained steadfast in his commitment to the world and its transformation ("Forgive them, for they know not what they do).
If Gibson was attempting to cause a feeling of gratitude and inspire persons to faith, I would submit that a more compelling story would be of the one who lived, died, and rose for a purpose, rather than the one who simply died. Gibson's film, while likely based in some sense of historical accuracy fails to display the truth of Jesus' power. The truth and power of Jesus' blood is lost in the 'facts' of this film.
The power of Jesus' blood is not in the way it splashed, poured, oozed, showered, and sprayed on the ground. The power was in an instance on a transformed vision of the world that endured death to empower humanity to do likewise. The power in the blood rests in this; the way humanity is empowered to walk and talk as Jesus did because of his resurrection. The torture and suffering of Jesus is of no merit for humanity, only the affirmation of his project and call in his life and resurrection.
Alan, I think you are absolutely right to criticize The Passion, for its overabundance of blood and glorification of violence. You also make some insightful theological and pastoral points. As Andrew highlights, the film's narrow focus on the death of Jesus (and that only in its bloody "facts") distorts and impoverishes the gospel.
ReplyDeleteI would, however, like to speak on behalf of the "Evangelicals" you mention and their/our atonement theology. (With the qualification that Evangelicals are only a tiny subset of those who affirm atonement theology, both worldwide and through history.) There's much more depth to atonement theology than blood and gore; as Andrew mentioned, the same brute facts can produce "radically different understandings of atonement." That diversity is not only in the alternatives to substitutionary atonement but also within it. It is true that some people uncritically think of an angry Father appeased by "gentle Jesus, meek and mild," but that is not what atonement theology really says. Evangelicals are unjustly likened to the "unchurched" here, just as it would be unfair to reduce the Moral Exemplar model to the common perception of Christianity as "being a good person." I'm not trying to prove whether atonement theology is doctrinally correct or not, just to show that it is not an uncritical way of thinking.
Within this tradition, the atonement must never be separated from the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not "divine child abuse" (as Womanist Theology claims) because the Son willingly chooses the cross. In this light, anti-Semitic interpretations of Jesus' death must also be completely rejected; the primary agent is none other than God (not just the Father, but Son and Spirit as well). You've shown effectively how The Passion tragically misrepresents the Jews. An overemphasis on Christ's physical sufferings is similarly problematic, as you have said. A movie which "out-bleeds most slasher movies" (nice phrasing!) is no less objectionable from an atonement perspective. The sickening gore distracts from what is really salvific – that this is an act of the triune God. As Julian of Norwich said, "The highest point in the passion is to know Who it is that suffered" (Revelation of Love, 43). Only as the self-giving of the God-Man could this otherwise horrific event be redemptive. Gibson tries to convey this idea, by beginning with Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane and concluding with the Resurrection. The script even has Jesus declare in the midst of suffering, "I am making all things new" (Rev. 21:5). Unfortunately, the three hours of mind-numbing violence obscure the "good news" in the guise of a horror movie.
Understanding Jesus' death as effecting the forgiveness of sins should not make contemplating the passion a "guilt-trip." The message really is "good news," because sin is defeated and love has the decisive word. When The Passion was in theaters, I was a high schooler immersed in the Evangelical youth group subculture. The overwhelming response among my peers was one of gratitude and love, not guilt. This was probably not because of the film's inherent merit; I agree that The Passion itself does not effectively convey the full significance of Jesus' death and resurrection and may thus be received as a guilt trip by the uninformed and uncritical. On the other hand, an audience which has thought through the doctrine of atonement may be able to redeem elements of Gibson's imperfect picture of redemption. That being said, I personally have no intention of ever watching it again!
To make a sweeping statement likening Evangelical Christian to the "unchurched" would indeed be unfair. The only connection I assert between the two groups is that many Evangelicals embrace a Christology rooted in blood-atonement. They are not alone in this regard since many Roman Catholics do too. Indeed, the designation “Evangelical” may be becoming increasingly complex with the emergence within “mainline” denominations of arguably Evangelical movements and strands. I would contend that such a phenomenon has emerged with Roman Catholicism with the full support of the last two Popes. I argue that the blood-atonement rationale for the death of Jesus is better known than the other alternatives and for this reason and that the unchurched are likely to be aware of it in its most basic form. I would argue that the message of evangelists (as opposed to Evangelicals per se - I am thinking of DL Moody, Amanda Smith and Aimee Semple McPherson)have historically called prodigals to repentance by evoking the blood sacrifice of Jesus rather than by referring to incarnational atonement or the moral exemplarist argument. I would contend that because of this the association of the death of Jesus with blood-sacrifice is engrained in a cultural consciousness in which both churched and unchurched are steeped. I would posit that Mandy is correct is arguing that the theological nuances of atonement theology are lost in cultural caricatures of the position. Gibson’s movie may do little to draw out any such theological subtlety.
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting (and disturbing) anecdote for the class:
ReplyDeleteYesterday I went to a Good Friday service at a nearby church (not my own!). It was the noon service, and I saw this note in the program: "Gospel Reading: John 18:1-19:37 [12 pm]; At the 7 pm service, the passion will be seen rather than read, using a portion of 'The Passion.'" Nooooo!
I find it very disturbing that a church which is usually so rooted in its tradition would REPLACE the gospel reading with a film clip, on one of the most holy days of the liturgical year. That move is problematic in terms of ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) and revelation (the presumed equivalence suggests that Scripture is merely a repository of information), but even more from a pastoral standpoint.
By bombarding the congregation with images of bloody violence, the film distracts from the profound mystery perceived only by the eyes of faith. How could anyone even compare "The Passion" to John's theological masterpiece, with its rich intertextuality and glorious irony of a king "lifted up"/glorified in the very shame and agony of the cross? The sensationalized violence encourages a lopsided, shallow view of redemption, as Alan has pointed out.
To be fair, congregants who already know the gospel accounts well may perhaps benefit spiritually from viewing Gibson's film, even at a Good Friday service. As modern readers, it is easy to clean up the crucifixion, which was truly the most agonizing and shameful form of execution the Roman Empire could conjure. If we ignore the cross, we cannot see the resurrection in all its power and glory. For those who do not have this foundation, however, "The Passion" may do more harm than good.
On the whole, replacing the Gospel of John with the Gospel of Mel is a very bad idea!