Reflections
on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"
Mark A. Chancey
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies
Southern Methodist University
(From
March 30, 2004 Panel Discussion at Southern Methodist University, sponsored by
American Jewish Congress and SMU Chaplain’s Office.)
Gibson’s
movie has proven to be a profoundly moving experience for many viewers,
especially for Christians who believe in substitutionary atonement—the idea
that Christ died to pay the penalty for humanity’s sins.
Many Christians interpret the movie through the lens of bible verses like
one found in Paul’s letter to the Romans, Romans 5:8 (“God proves his love
for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”) and another
found in the Gospel of John in John 15:13 (“Greater love hath no man than
this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”).
For many Christians, every blow, every insult, and every lash of the whip
Christ receives is punishment that should have been directed at us instead.
They think, “It’s my sin that put Jesus on the cross—and it’s me
who is responsible for his death.” Gibson
very effectively drives this point home by showing his own hand driving the
nails into the hand of Jesus. It is
a testimony to the power of Gibson’s filmmaking that so many people have found
“The Passion” to be deeply moving. For
them, watching the movie is a very powerful religious experience.
It adds to and strengthens their faith.
I think such responses are understandable, and I’m glad that this movie
has proven to be a blessing to so many people.
That may be something that comes out tonight in the discussion—why some
Christians have responded so favorably to the movie.
I’m
also glad that that Gibson’s movie de-sanitizes the cross.
Depicting the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus as violent is an
improvement over older Bible movies, where Jesus hangs up on the cross and looks
mildly uncomfortable. Those of us who are Christians are often so eager to get to
Easter Sunday that we skirt too lightly over Good Friday.
We’re ready for the empty tomb, not the violence of the cross.
The cross was a bloody, gory mess, and we should recognize it as such.
At
the same time, I think we should acknowledge that parts of the movie are
problematic. For a year we heard
Gibson say that he was going to make the most accurate Jesus movie ever made.
Then, right before the release of the movie, he appeared on Diane Sawyers
and said that the movie was his vision of what happened—it’s the Mel Gibson
version. I wish he had said that
all along, because I don’t think the
movie is especially true to the Bible. Some of its scenes are biblical, but many are not.
Many viewers are not going to be able to tell the difference between
what’s biblical and what’s not.
As
is well-known, Gibson also used Roman Catholic tradition about the Stations of
the Cross. These
stations consist of 14 pictures or carvings portraying events associated with
the Passion of Jesus. They are
found in Catholic churches, where they serve as an aid to meditations on
Jesus’ suffering. I think this is
a very interesting artistic idea, to use the stations as a source for telling
the story. Here, Gibson is making a
very respectful nod towards church tradition.
I don’t object to including the Stations, per se; I just wish Gibson
had been more careful in how he described the movie in the build-up to its
release.
I’m
more troubled by Gibson’s use of the journals of an 18-19th century
German nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich. Emmerich
had mystic visions of the Passion. Her
visions were recorded in a journal, which was published after her death.
Many of the scenes in the movie were drawn from her visions.
This is not necessarily problematic—though, again, I wish Gibson hadn’t made
such a point of the movie’s “accuracy.”
Making
a movie just from the Gospels themselves would have been challenging enough.
They differ in the way they tell the story.
Sometimes Gibson follows one gospel; sometimes another.
Gibson is picking and choosing which stories in the Gospels to depict.
Such picking and choosing is inevitable.
In addition, he’s picking and choosing from Roman Catholic tradition
and from Emmerich. One question we
might consider is “How close should the storyteller stick to the biblical
texts, and how much artistic leeway should we give the storyteller to draw from
other sources?” I can imagine
very different answers to that question—all of them making good points.
I
think it’s important to acknowledge that some of Gibson’s choices are
unfortunate. Gibson’s Pilate
looks better than the Gospels’ Pilate—and Gibson’s Jews look worse than
the Gospels’ Jews.
Pilate
not only declares Jesus’ innocence (all gospels) but he does so repeatedly
(Luke)
Pilate washes his hands of the whole matter (Matthew)
Pilate’s wife loses sleep over Jesus (based on Matthew, where she has a dream
about his innocence)
Pilate offers Jesus a drink of water (not in the gospels)
He is shocked by the scourging of Jesus (Gibson)
Pilate’s wife offers Mary and Mary a cloth to wipe up Jesus’ blood (Emmerich)
Gibson humanizes Pilate. He’s a
thoughtful man, with a difficult assignment, in a difficult time, just trying to
do the best he can. According to
the movie, he’s even been given a last warning by the emperor that he can’t
let any trouble happen. Gibson
depicts Pilate, who actually crucified Jesus, as a man of his time.
In contrast, Caiaphas is never humanized. We
never see him as a thoughtful man, with a difficult assignment, in a difficult
time, trying to do the best he can. He
is entirely a villain. He is
entirely evil. Furthermore, he is
physically ugly, with horrific teeth and a big nose.
In addition, Caiaphas and the other priests wear what look like Jewish prayer
shawls—they’re not prayer shawls, but they look like them--and they have
earlocks. If all Jews in the movie
were costumed this way, then it wouldn’t matter. Gibson, however, has taken
images associated with modern Jews and applied them only to the villains—a
classic misstep in passion plays, and one that encourages misunderstanding.
The Jewish party that arrests Jesus beats him as they take him to the
priests—a point taken from Emmerich, not the Bible.
And, perhaps worst of all, in the movie, the Jewish crowds repeatedly want to
beat Jesus. They try to get to him
at every turn. This is not in the
bible; it’s from Emmerich. I
think this is especially misleading for those who aren’t familiar with the
biblical story.
There are a few sympathetic Jewish characters, but not many.
Instead, we get the idea from the movie that both the priests and the
crowds were vicious, murderous, and bloodthirsty.
Gibson doesn’t include Luke 23:48, which specifically says that the
Jewish crowds mourned when Jesus was executed.
When Jesus dies, we don’t get the splitting of the veil in the Holy of Holies
in the Temple, like we get in the Gospels.
Instead, in Gibson, the temple itself splits—a fairly explicit
statement about Judaism.
None of this would matter, if not for the history of Christian persecution of
Jews because of the mistaken belief that “the Jews killed Jesus.”
I’m talking about the “deicide” charge—the idea that “the
Jews” killed Jesus, and thus all Jews, for all times should be punished for
his murder. This belief runs
through the writings of our greatest Christian thinkers—Augustine, John
Chrysostom, Martin Luther, and many others.
It formed the basis for a long history of active Christian persecution of
Jews. From the middle ages on,
Passion plays have often encouraged anti-Jewish stereotypes and sentiment.
Also in the middle ages, in some parts of Europe, the custom began of
beating up Jews during Holy Week, especially on Good Friday or Easter Sunday,
because “the Jews killed Jesus.” This
custom continued until the mid-20th century.
It changed not because European Christians wised up, but because Hitler
destroyed the Jewish population of Eastern Europe.
We
do not have the option of ignoring this history, and, in light of it, some of
Gibson’s choices are extremely unfortunate.
Gibson made poor choices in his depiction of the priests and the Jewish
crowds. The movie is not as bad as
it could be in this respect, but it’s bad enough.
Gibson could have made other choices that were less problematic.
It raises an important question for us Christians: can we tell the Good
News of Jesus in a way that’s not bad news for Jews?
I think the answer is yes, but it’s worth considering how to do so.
The
fact that so many Christians found nothing problematic about Gibson’s
depiction of the Jews is in many ways a good thing; it shows that for many
Christians, blaming Jews for Jesus’ death is the farthest thing from their
mind.
On
the other hand, I’ve been saddened when I’ve heard concerns about
anti-Semitism be belittled or dismissed. The
concerns are legitimate. Some
Christians do still believe in the deicide charge.
In addition, just because the release of the movie has gone smoothly in
America doesn’t mean it will go smoothly everywhere.
I’m
also troubled by the polarization of the debate about the movie--by the
statements from some religious leaders, by the e-mails, by the letters to the
editor, by some of the columns in the newspaper, all to the effect that any
criticism of the movie is an attack on Christianity. I’ve heard people say that anyone who doesn’t support
this movie is a humanist, a secularist, a atheist, or, worst of all, a liberal.
More than once, I’ve heard that those of us who are “good
Christians” should do our part to “show those liberals” and “show
Hollywood.” I know people who
have received hate mail—and lots of it—because they expressed concerns about
how the movie portrays Jews—concerns that have turned out to be legitimate.
To my mind, this idea that the movie is beyond criticism, and that to
criticize it is to attack Christianity, is not only absurd, it is tragic.
How did we get to this point? What
does all of this say about American Christianity?
I
don’t think there’s anything wrong with deeply appreciating this movie.
I do think that that appreciation should go hand-in-hand with a
recognition of the ways in which the movie is problematic.
I’m grateful for the conversations the movie has provoked.
Moments like tonight are the best thing to come out of the movie, and I
couldn’t be happier about that.
[1]
On this point, see Philip
A. Cunningham, “Gibson’s The
Passion of the Christ: A Challenge to Catholic Teaching,” at
www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/reviews/gibson_cunningham.htm.
[2] See Matthew Myer Boulton, “The Problem with
the Passion,” at http://www.christiancentury.org/features.html#The%20problem%20with%20<I>The%20Passion</I>.
[3] See Mark A. Chancey, “An
Unacknowledged Passion,” http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chancey_Unacknowledged%20_Passion.htm
RETURN TO
"PASSIONS" PAGE
MARK
CHANCEY PAGE
HOME
