"The Passion of the Christ"

I went to see the film at a Friday afternoon matinee with my family. Here are my thoughts and observations...

First thing I have to say is that I appreciate what Mel Gibson has done here as an artist and as a follower of Jesus. Second thing is that on several levels, I found myself unable to emotionally connect with some of the scenes that I think he (and others) would have wanted me to take most to heart. So much of what we make of this movie is very dependent on where we are already at in our own relationship with Christ and Christianity. But for what they set out to do, Gibson and his production company are to be commended for a very impressive and unique accomplishment.

This rendering of the last hours of Jesus' life is very stylized, so much so that most of the time I remained conscious of the fact that I was watching a film and an interpretation of the gospels. Having already seen the glossy coffee table book, I recognize the great care that went into the visual composition of the film, and to me, especially given the archaic foreign dialogue, this visual element is given more emphasis than usual in the overall experience of watching a movie. The production company is "Icon Entertainment" and that fits, because really the film is one iconic scene after another. Much symbolism and significance is packed into just about every segment. There's little that happens merely for the sake of transition. I like that richness.

But I never really had an "I am there" sense, nothing at all reflecting the Pope's alleged "It is as it was" comment. At one point, I thought, "this film is a perfect distillation of mediterranean European spirituality," for what that's worth. What I mean by that is I see an interpretation of Jesus that is irrevocably overlaid with references to the history of Europe and the Roman Catholic tradition, which is not to invalidate the film's message or theology, just to clarify it. In particular, the way that the two Mary's were portrayed, the sustained focus on Christ's blood and agony, the softening if not outright exoneration of Pilate, even the architecture and costume design (of the temple elite especially) - all these elements seem to me to have grown out of something other than the original Semitic context, even though there are traceable roots to these details in the gospels themselves. And my own knowledge of Gibson's adherence to retro-Catholic practices certainly influences how I receive the film as well.

There's a whole host of artistic touches that I'll lump together and refer to as "the wierd stuff" - the evil baby, the thing crawling up Satan's nose that apparently turns into the serpent that Jesus smashes with his foot, the twisted grinning imps that torment Judas, the zoom out from a parched circle of hell and several other additions - that I find very intriguing and will probably draw me back for a second viewing at some point, just to get a deeper sense of what Gibson was up in adding those elements.

I also recall wondering about the significance of the moon and sun - at different times, Jesus is seen praying or otherwise communicating with his father, and clouds obscure these celestial objects, somehow indicating apparently that Jesus' contact with God has been cut off. That just seemed a bit strange to me, kind of pagan even, like the lights in the sky really have some kind of spiritual significance... I suppose as a film-making device it has its place and I may be making a bigger deal even mentioning it than is warranted.

I did have problems with the too-sympathetic portrayal of Pilate and his wife, and I didn't like the traditional but erroneous equation of Mary Magdalene with the "woman caught in adultery" from John 8. (Though I thought Monica Bellucci was perfectly cast for this role, but then, I always enjoy looking at her on the screen!) I'm willing to go along with the St. Veronica and other "Catholic bits" since they add interesting elements to the story. But in the case of Pilate especially, it seems like Gibson went too far in depicting his reluctance and anxiety about putting Jesus to death.

And then there's the whole rabid crowd and sadistic torture thing... It's obvious that the film is in a sense indicting "humanity at large" for our collective participation in Jesus' torments, and even though it's a Jewish crowd that is hounding Jesus en route to the crucifixion, I can accept Gibson's intention to apply the guilt to the rest of us who weren't personally present, Jew and Gentile alike. But as I've said elsewhere, I have my own problems with over-applying that responsibility to the extent that it alleviates the culpability of those who were personally responsible for Jesus' death, and those who continue to perpetuate such corrupt and unjust systems of control and exploitation in our world today. I personally cannot and will not identify with the Roman guards who abused Jesus and drove the nails into his body, because I know that I would never ever do anything like that to any person. Nor can I identify with those who jeered and mocked Jesus, crying out for his blood and taunting his messianic claims, because I would likewise never be a part of such a crowd. I don't hold that kind of hatred and contempt in my heart for any people, and I can claim this with confidence because I give God the credit for softening and enlightening me to this understanding. And I do believe that there are a lot of people in this world who think and feel likewise. IMO, while there's a theological point to be made about our "fallenness," our inclination to sin for selfish reasons, and so on, labelling all of us as "Christ killers" goes much too far. I believe that Christ lived, spoke and ministered to the ordinary people of this world who stood with him but were powerless to stop the forces of temple and empire that put him to death. So I guess you can chalk this up to theological differences on original sin, human depravity, etc.

In some ways, I think all of the hype that led up to the film's release will have a negative effect on how it's ultimately received even though it will help with the box office. To a certain extent, I found actually seeing the film a bit anti-climactic. Kind of a "now what?" response when it was finally over. Perhaps it was influenced by the setting - we saw the movie in a mostly empty theater on a sunny Friday afternoon. Right after the film ended, we had to get out to our car so that we could drop off our sons in time to do their paper route. The kids didn't have a lot to say - none of us were particularly emotional, just kind of quiet. This context was obviously quite different than seeing the film in a packed theater of like-minded believers, perhaps even with Mel Gibson or others associated with the production present, as was the case with many of the special advance screenings. Very near to the end of the showing that we were at, I saw two young men, probably in their twenties, move to the front of the theater, sitting in the second row. When the credits came on the screen, they each stood up with their arms outstretched in praise, then after a few moments, they knelt down, folded their hands in prayer and remained there, heads bowed, as the rest of us left the theater. It seemed a bit ostentatious to me. I have no problem if that was their response to the movie, but they obviously moved to a place where everyone else would see them, since their arms extended into the screen as the credits were rolling.

This kind of an effort, if I can call it that, to almost "demand" a public, spiritual response to the film, may end up backfiring on those who see this film as first and foremost an evangelistic opportunity - a cultural moment of outreach and confrontation with the forces of spiritual darkness. I neither wish nor predict that expectations for a revival sparked by this film will fizzle out or come up empty - some people will be clearly touched and inspired by this film. But a lot of viewers will go on with their lives as usual and in some ways, depending on how the film is "pushed" and handled, I can imagine that some obstacles could be created between earnest believers and those that they'd like to reach through this media attraction. I came to the theater with my own sense of relationship to God through Christ, and the Jesus I saw on screen in some ways is foreign to my own understanding - just as I imagine my own depiction of Jesus would fail to connect with Mel Gibson and others... I respect what he did, and I can say that my faith was nourished by different parts of the film. But what I saw on the screen wasn't enough to radically reorient my understanding or override the numerous faith-shaping experiences that preceded my viewing of "The Passion of the Christ." I'm glad that we have this film to view, ponder and discuss - to whatever extent it helps us dig deeper into the vital questions of life with God and with each other that Jesus raised and addressed, Mel Gibson has done a good thing. Not a flawless, perfect or "inerrantly inspired" thing, but a good thing nonetheless! :o)

Family Life Conference

Last weekend, Julie and I went to a "Weekend to Remember" Marriage and Family Conference sponsored by Family Life, a ministry affiliated with Campus Crusade for Christ. It was Julie's idea, a suggestion that would help us work through some marital difficulties and the general wear'n'tear of things that happens to a couple over the course of years living together. I was a bit reluctant at first, mostly because of the religious perspective of the conference. I was concerned about just how "fundy" the material would be, and wasn't really looking forward to having to go through a lot of Bible drilling or whatever else they might have in mind. Knowing that my "liberal" approach to Christianity is considered more or less synonymous with rank "unbelief" in many evangelical circles, I wondered just what kind of grief I might be in for. But I posted a message to the Family Life Forum and was assured that the emphasis of the conference was more on communication and relationship building, though there would be plenty of Scripture references and the material would definitely come from within the conservative Christian worldview. The responses I got from a few people who had attended the conference set me at ease, despite my reservations about some of the material I saw on the website about "male headship" and "God's blueprint for marriage." (I still wonder just what these folks have to say about the obvious "blueprints" that endorse polygamy and other objectionable practices for running families according to "biblical principles" that we find in various portions of scripture.)

So I agreed to go to the conference, and we made the necessary financial and practical arrangements, including sending the twins off to a church-sponsored weekend retreat, getting our other two children set up to deliver papers, and other sundry details too trivial to mention here. The conference was held in the luxurious Amway Grand Plaza hotel, right in the heart of downtown Grand Rapids, about a ten-minute drive from our house, conveniently enough. (Which came in handy, because Julie and I still had to get up early on Sunday morning to coordinate delivery of that morning's Grand Rapids Press.)

We had a great weekend! I'll be honest to admit that the days leading up to the conference weren't exactly blissful between Julie and I, but in typical "guy" fashion, I can hardly recall exactly what it was that we were in conflict about. I just remember that we weren't talking much or very warmly to each other. Even after the first night, with our best intentions at work, we still had some rough interactions, which led to a few tears and some frustration that we were right back in that zone again. But Saturday was much better - we listened to some engaging speakers, I was able to get enough that seemed valuable and applicable to me despite some philosophical differences with portions of the material, and we did as much of our "assignments" as our break times allowed. Mostly, Julie and I just talked and reaffirmed with each other our reasons for getting and staying married despite our differences and the struggles that have arisen because of them. And we really enjoyed the chance to get out and be a couple for an extended period of time. It was a very healthy, refreshing, enlivening day. We went out that night to San Chez, a popular and somewhat trendy "tapas bistro" where we enjoyed great food and conversation, and just had a good time.

By mid-day Sunday, we were both approaching "information overload" and I personally didn't find the material quite as helpful - this was the portion of the conference where they split up the men and the women, and I had to sit through more sports stories and "guys like us" anecdotes than I would ordinarily endure. But when Julie and I got together, it was good again, the sun was out, we found a cool coffee house on the river and had a nice lunch break. Then we went back to wrap things up, check out of the hotel, and soon enough we were back home where we welcomed the twins back home, drove our daughter back to her dorm at Grand Valley State, and got ready to resume our routines, with a refreshed, hopeful attitude that so far hasn't worn off noticeably over this past week.

Anticipating "The Passion"

There's been plenty of discussion happening lately about the new Mel Gibson film, "The Passion of the Christ." Here are a few thoughts I posted to the PoMoXian email list earlier today. I've reworked it a bit since I was replying to someone else's post:

"The Passion" has already generated a lot of controversy and media coverage and it's natural to wonder about how long the buzz will last. It will be hard to beat the lead-up, IMO. The movie will certainly make a big splash at the box office due to so many advance and block ticket sales, and I also think there will be a big repeat-business audience. Sales of the DVDs will probably be huge as well. It remains to be seen what kind of spiritual revival or theological water-cooler conversations will be sparked. There are some very high expectations out there, but it's mainly because mostly only "true believers" have seen the film and it plays directly into what is most sacred and true to them. But there are also a lot of jaded people who may see the movie and interpret it entirely differently than the devout screening audiences have so far.

There's a certain irony in all these pastors urging their congregations to go see an R rated film, but I am wondering how this film may be used in churches after its theatrical run is concluded. Will youth groups show it to teenagers? Will an edited "Passion for Kidz" version be released that turns the violence down a few notches? There may be some Christian audiences who think the violence goes too far, or is maybe even gratuitous. Will there be a backlash along the lines of what another list member mentioned recently (especially along Catholic-Protestant lines, since Gibson has basically recreated the "Stations of the Cross" on film)?

I also wonder about how historically accurate the film is about Jesus' actual crucifixion. Of course, we really can never know. I was at my son's orthodontist today and they had a big coffee table book of photos from the film, one of numerous spinoffs that are being released these days. Most of us have probably seen some of these pictures, but let me tell you, Jesus is more physically torn up in this movie than in any I've ever seen. Bloody from head to toe, gaping open wounds on his face, chest and legs as well as his back, blood spattered on bystanders, dripping on to the base of the cross, and so on. The thieves on the other crosses are not nearly as brutalized.

I know the gospels talk about Jesus being flogged, abused, spit on, the crown of thorns, etc. but I think it's at least fair to say that Gibson may have embellished Jesus' wounds for cinematic and/or theological effect. This emphasis on physical torments, along with the set designs, costuming, cinematic composition, etc. establish in my mind an atmosphere that is more "medieval" actually than what I might imagine the historical situation would have looked like. The photos looked a lot like European Renaissance paintings and in that sense, the violence inflicted upon Jesus actually takes on a stylized tone. Keep in mind, of course, that I'm basing these impressions on a photography book - so I am not yet drawing conclusions about the movie.

The question raised on the cover of a recent issue of Newsweek: "Who really killed Jesus?" Mel's answer was a traditional one - we are all responsible, and Gibson emphasized this by using his own hand in the film to hold the nail that pierced Jesus' hand. But I have some reservations about saying that "all of us" killed Jesus, rather than "the Romans and the Jewish priests."

We have to recognize that as an means of execution, Jesus' crucifixion was hardly unique, and I don't even think there is any real biblical case to say that his crucifixion was "the worst of them all" as far as the physical punishment he endured was concerned - other than that Jesus was innocent and undeserving of that punishment. But I hardly consider that the thousands of other anonymous Jews, peasants and others that the Romans crucified really "deserved" to be treated that way. Crucifixion is and always was a horrible, evil, sadistic penalty, contributing nothing to the establishment of justice due to the cruelty and viciousness that motivated those who used it. At least that's how I see it. I'm not even sure that the gospel writers saw it that way, but I cannot see any justification or moral quality in that particular form of capital punishment. It was government sanctioned, legalized terrorism in every sense of the word.

As with all these things, our explanation of how Jesus was brought into these circumstances influences a lot of our theological interpretation of the crucifixion. I see Jesus as the one who paid an ultimate price for his allegiance and identification with God, and I hold some humans and authority systems as more culpable for his death than others - I don't believe that "all humanity" carries an equal share of blame for his unjust execution. I do believe that we are all sinners and fall short of God's perfection, but that is a different matter. Spreading the blame for Jesus' death can actually be an evasion and a cop-out that protects those who were more responsible. To me, Jesus' death on the cross is a testimony against capital punishment and institutionalized violence committed by organized groups who mistakenly believe they are fulfilling God's will by killing those they find offensive or blasphemous. And it really blows my mind when I think about how many Christians are willing to condemn others to death or condone extreme violence against others because the rulers of church or empire say it is necessary. I think they missed something somewhere along the line. But that's just me I guess.

People can indeed be vengeful, vicious, capricious and astonishingly brutal. I believe that Jesus taught his followers how to resist and transcend that part of our natural behavior. He paid a terrible price when he stood against those powers. We ought to honor our Lord and Master by following his example, not revelling in the squalor of his tragic execution. If the Church can reclaim its stand against cruelty and violence as a result of how it's depicted in Mel Gibson's film, it will be a wonderful and amazing achievement indeed.

Crazy Busy

Work has been hectic lately - I'm going to offer some explaining about why I haven't been emailing or blogging or any of that stuff lately.

As I mentioned previously, my Assistant Supervisor Kristen found a new job out in California so she is now done and out there, leaving me with a fair amount of extra tasks to manage, including the whole difficult and awkward process of selecting a new person for that role. I had three very good candidates, I could have easily and enjoyably worked with any of them, but we had to finally settle on one person, which we have. And now I am bracing for the aftermath of disappointment and discussions with the two who were passed over. Not fun, but necessary and I know that comes with the territory in my position.

Yesterday was pretty nuts though, unrelated to what I just mentioned. Within a 15-minute span of time, I discovered that I would have to drive a client to court that afternoon, about 80 miles southwest of Grand Rapids (St. Joseph, actually), two of the weekend overnight shifts opened up because the staff who was scheduled was on a work restriction based on an injury he suffered in a fall last week, and another co-worker had to come off of his Friday, Saturday and Sunday night shifts because his wife would be induced into labor to give birth to their second child. SO... five open shifts and my whole afternoon wiped out due to a last-minute scheduling adjustment that I basically had no choice over. Plus I had to communicate with a judge's office and the sherriff's department about a client who went AWOL on Tuesday, and I had to meet with my own supervisor to discuss some other relatively urgent matters. What I ended up having to miss out on was a lunch appointment with my friend Mark, planning for this morning's team meeting (which went OK but still I would like to have been more focused and prepared) and a chance to get caught up on a fair amount of paperwork (evals, scheduling, clearing out old forms and other stuff) that has been getting put off for too long.

But I was able to get back and forth to St. Joe in time to attend the 4 pm meeting that I was scheduled for over on our company's main campus (involving years-down-the-road future planning for the program I supervise.) When I got home, I saw that my wife was gone, and quickly discovered that she and my son Brandon went over to the Federal Express warehouse to pick up his new computer components! When they got home, everything was quickly unpacked, we took a break for dinner, then finished assembling the bits and now we have three pretty fine computers networked in our basement. And on top of all that, I took Derek out to get the hot new Game Cube "Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles" game that just came out this week. So we are one techno-hip family, I guess.

So there's not much of broader interest or on the "pomoxian" topic in all that, but it's just a sample of what's been going on with me.

A Proud Kucinich Supporter

OK, so I went ahead and voted for Dennis Kucinich, helping him climb to just over 3% of the votes cast by Michigan Democrats (and Democratic sympathizers.) My 18-year-old daughter Alyssa, casting her first vote ever, went with the winner John Kerry, based not just on his front-runner status, but also the fact that when she took one of those presidential candidate quizzes on the Internet, Kerry scored 100% with her on the issues. (Kucinich was my 100% match, with Kerry coming in a close 99%, and Bush trailing all candidates with only 17%.) Interestingly, Kerry was also my wife's top scoring candidate, with a 92%, and Bush was only 38% in her scale, even though she's uncompromisingly pro-life and will vote that as a single issue trump card. She's not really with Bush on the economy, social issues, the environment and increasingly she's coming to share my skepticism about the war. But I doubt that I'll ever be able to convince her to vote Democratic, given the state of the political rift over abortion in our country.

So why did I vote for Kucinich? Because of his stand on the issues, and because he came to Western Michigan when no other candidate considered it a worthwhile trip, and because I knew that Kerry was going to swarm in any case, so why not "go with my heart" this time out. I'm really not very pleased with Kucinich as a candidate though. He has some big obstacles to overcome, I know, and I have no idea how much apathy or resistance he has to deal with from the media. But he hasn't really done "our cause" all that much good, IMO. At least, he hasn't been able to frame the issues in a way that galvanizes much support. Maybe it's just that people size him up and figure that there's no way he would ever give Bush a serious run, based on all the stylistic, telegenic, charisma, etc. considerations, apart from whatever it is that politicians supposedly stand for. I can understand that. I'd be concerned myself going into November trying to sell Kucinich as our next "Commander in Chief" to the general American public. Kerry, on the other hand, well you know, he's the "Real Deal!" I think he's got a good chance at making the name "Bush" become synonymous with "one-term president" as far as American politics are concerned.

Speaking of Bush, I'll be checking out the replay of Tim Russert's "Meet the Press" interview later on today. Be back later with my comments on the President's performance and what he had to say about stuff...

Voting Day

Today is the day that concerned citizens in Michigan are going to cast their votes for the next Democratic presidential nominee. I am one of many people who are dedicated to replacing George W Bush as president of the USA. I am confident that any of the Democrats up for nomination would do a better job than Bush.

So who am I going to vote for? I have been pondering this decision for several weeks now. I find John Kerry to be the most likeable of all the candidates, actually. Howard Dean never really clicked with me when he was the front runner, though I like a lot of what he stands for. I wouldn't be opposed to him as our president, but I just didn't feel that sense of connection between myself and him as a "personality." I've gotten a couple of robo-calls from him though, which at least makes me feel like they are working to earn my vote. Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton are non-violent idealists like myself and I respect the contributions they've made, though I often wonder if they've really been taken seriously, and also wonder what they could do to be taken seriously - the deck was stacked against them just because they don't appear to be conventional candidates. Wes Clark and John Edwards are also intriguing possibilities - I might have been more inclined to vote for them if they had bothered to come to Michigan. Overall, it looks like our state has been bypassed - Kerry has gotten all the big endorsements and is likely to win huge here without having to work all that hard for it.

So where do I go? Kerry, who I actually do respect and admire based on what I have seen through the media, or Dean who could keep the campaign in the headlines if he's able to survive long enough (and who has "reached out" to me more than any other candidate through email and phone), Kucinich who is the "peace candidate" and in that sense merits support from activists like me? I still have not made up my mind! Part of me likes the idea of voting for a winner - it happens so seldom! :o) But I could also cast that vote for someone who needs it more than Kerry does... Hmmm. I'll let you know after I have done the deed.