The Passion
We're planning to show the "Passion" on Good Friday afternoon in the church at 2.00pm. We decided to do this because we felt that some people might find it helpful to come and sit in the quiet of the church and reflect upon the reality of Calvary.
However this film is not for the faint hearted. I can well understand why it has been described by some critics as ‘religious pornography'. To the uninitiated, it could appear to be yet another piece of sanctified Hollywood violence. For Gibson it is a graphic study of Isaiah chapter 53. . "He was wounded for our transgressions... and by his stripes we are healed." This is the scripture that appears on the screen before a word is spoken and it is the key to understanding the movie.
I have no doubt about the sincerity in which the film was made. No doubt Gibson knew what he was doing when he made the flogging scenes last forever. I'm not sure if his judgement was right, though? I also wonder about the wisdom of trying to separate the death of Christ from the context of his life. Gibson tries to make links with Christ's life through flashbacks and when he does this it works really well. However, these are too few and some of the flashbacks may have fallen victim to the demands of editing. The question is, can you truly speak of the passion if you only reveal a limited knowledge and understanding of the ministry and life of the sacrifice? Jesus appears as a stranger to the viewer. You only meet him during the last twelve hours of his life. Very little history goes before the great sacrifice and we never really get more than a glimpse into the life that was being laid down.
It was a brave thing to attempt, but is it possible really to understand the Christ if you have only encountered him suffering? This, of course, is the question Gibson poses when he introduces Simeon the Cyrenean to carry the cross. Here is a character who resents the implications of being involved with a criminal and ends up a believer. Maybe we all run away from suffering too quickly; maybe this is what this movie is trying to tell us?
I'm arguing that the story of Christ's passion on the cross needs to be contextualised; but, having said that, the film is a powerful meditation of the suffering of Christ. Paul speaks in Philippians of entering into the sufferings of Christ. No one can truly do that; but from a Roman Catholic perspective Gibson sees himself as a believer who is putting the sacrifice of Christ out there for all to see," Behold the Man" . This is a visual representation of the Mass. In the Mass, he sees the body of Christ being perpetually broken for the sin of the world. To him there is a sense in which this is still going on. This is the detergent for all our souls. We turn our eyes away. We dare not look. The death of Christ is shocking! Gibson has given the world an understanding as to why many in the ancient world saw crucifixion as a scandal.
From a reformed viewpoint, we believe that the sacrifice was once and for all, hence we tend to speak of the glorified Christ. However to get to the Glory there has to be the suffering. In all this there is perhaps a balance we Presbyterians need to reflect upon. I won't take bus loads to see this film because I think you can only go to the cross by yourself.
It may well be that I find myself slipping in to a cinema within the next few weeks to reflect on aspects of the film that I'm sure I have missed. I'd like to view the resurrection scene again. I'm not sure if Gibson's resurrection scenes actually do what he wanted them to do? There are clever links with the Turin Shroud and I believe much research went into making these parallels. The moving of the stone and the empty grave clothes were all powerful statements of the physical resurrection. The appearance of the risen Christ was less convincing.
As a film and a piece of art it will remain controversial, as does the theology of the cross itself. If you go, don't expect to be entertained. Ask yourself. "What do I really think about Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ?"
