Friday, April 14, 2006
Holy Week – Friday
I’ve already alluded to the fact that I disagree with the common understanding of Jesus’ death as a divine orchestration carried out in order to save the world of sin. This understanding has often lead me close to the point of abandoning my self definition as a Christian. I really thank Marcus Borg for writing several books that gave me a way to still call myself a Christian without accepting much of the institutional church’s artificial doctrines. I also thank him for this latest book “The Last Week” for giving me a new connection to Holy Week. Spending time reading the book and blogging about each day has been a deep spiritual experience for me even though I’ve probably confused or angered a few people on the way.
I really had a hard time with Mel Gibson’s movie “the passion of Christ”. Not because it was a bad movie, but because it’s title and focus misplaced Jesus’ passion. Jesus’ passion was not his ability to endure a gruesome death. His passion was what he had spent his life speaking about. His passion was his vision about a new order of life filled with transformed people in a community with God, free from oppression by the empire and manipulative religious leaders. When we misplace his passion to be about his death we have missed his point.
Without the idea of substitutionary atonement, what is left as the meaning for Jesus death? Why did Friday happen?
The empire did what the empire always does. They killed Jesus just like they always kill revolutionaries. The empire killed John, Jesus, Paul, James and many more people. After a failed rebellion in AD 66-70 they wiped out Jerusalem and even destroyed the temple then spent the next 2 centuries feeding Christian rebels to the lions. Even 2000 years later people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were killed for protesting the political domination systems of their day. This is what oppressive domination systems do best. The fact that Jesus' death was by crucifixion highlights this point. That type of death was reserved for runaway slaves and rebel insurgents as a very public warning not to subvert the empire. (fyi.. the two “bandits” on the cross next to him are often mistaken for thieves, but the Greek word translated “bandit” is commonly used for guerilla fighters or freedom fighters.) Ordinary criminals were not crucified. The 3 people who were crucified that day were rebels.
Jesus’ death was the ultimate form of practicing what you preach. He taught about resisting evil without violence. He taught about turning the other cheek. Through his death he taught us to give our lives as a sacrifice for the cause of the kingdom of God. He did that by protesting the empire until they killed him. If we limit his passion to his suffering and death then we overlook the passion that brought him to Jerusalem that week. We also risk becoming passive participants in the empire unknowingly helping to preserve unjust systems of oppression.
Jesus’ death was a common occurrence for that time and place. In fact, Jesus was absolutely guilty of the crimes he was accused of committing. He was guilty of being a rebel against the empire even though his brand of rebellion was one of non-violence. Good Friday is the result of the collision between the passion of Jesus and the domination systems of his time. The sinful nature of people (greed of the empire) did kill Jesus. In that sense, Jesus died because of the sins of the world even if he didn’t die in place of our sins.
Jesus, forgive me for missing your point. Help me to make up for lost time by doing all I can to correct the injustices in the world.
9 comments:
"I really had a hard time with Mel Gibson’s movie “the passion of Christ”. Not because it was a bad movie, but because it’s title and focus misplaced Jesus’ passion"
the word passion has many definitions. Gibson just used one of many, his was not wrong or wrongly focused. For that matter, should your use of the term "nuts" be considered wrong because it doesn't refer to a botanical product?
pas·sion /ˈpæʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pash-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling, as love or hate.
2. strong amorous feeling or desire; love; ardor.
3. strong sexual desire; lust.
4. an instance or experience of strong love or sexual desire.
5. a person toward whom one feels strong love or sexual desire.
6. a strong or extravagant fondness, enthusiasm, or desire for anything: a passion for music.
7. the object of such a fondness or desire: Accuracy became a passion with him.
8. an outburst of strong emotion or feeling: He suddenly broke into a passion of bitter words.
9. violent anger.
10. the state of being acted upon or affected by something external, esp. something alien to one's nature or one's customary behavior (contrasted with action).
11. (often initial capital letter) Theology. a. the sufferings of Christ on the cross or His sufferings subsequent to the Last Supper.
b. the narrative of Christ's sufferings as recorded in the Gospels.
12. Archaic. the sufferings of a martyr.
Thanks for the comment Chris. As you've pointed out, Mel isn't the first to confuse the crucifixion of Jesus with his "passion". That was done long ago and Mel just continued the mistake. Most dictionaries (sorry Mr. Webster)include that bad interpretation because it has become so common. The purpose of a dictionary is not to come up with "truth" but to present common uses of words. That definition proves that this use of passion is common and well accepted but NOT GOOD THEOLOGY.
I don't dispute the commonality of the term or its acceptance by the church and for that reason Webster is correct to add it as a common definition. But, I do dispute its accuracy as a theological statement.
Using the title "the passion of Christ" for a film focued entirely on the death of Jesus implies (and misleads) that Jesus was passionate about dying. I feel that is wrong. Jesus was passionate about peace and justice (the kingdom of God) and to do that in the face of the Roman empire was a death sentence.
Would Jesus be somehow less valuable to us if he had not be able to endure the pain? What if he had broken down and cried or begged to be released? Maybe he really did? Was his life somehow more valuable because he was macho and could endure pain? I suspect this type of logic is more a result of a few too many John Wayne movies rather than good theology. It is common in all societies to somehow value people who face death with courage, but I think it gives people the wrong impression and strengthens the worldly attitude that "tough" is good and "weak" is bad. It is built into the fabric of our war driven competitive society, but it doesn't fit into the message that Jesus taught which values meekness, humility, and the last becoming first.
I've never heard it taught anywhere that Jesus was to be seen as tough. It's taught that he was broken and murdered, and went peacefully. Has nothing to do with toughness, and his teachings are generally known as the weak are strong in the Lord alone, not of themselves.
But back to passion - where in the Bible is the word passion used to describe how he felt about peace and justice? I see "passion" in Acts1:2
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
I think we'd probably agree that Acts in the KJV does not exhibit bad theology; I'd say Webster was on the right track with their definition.
What about Jesus' very words to Nicodemus in John 3:1-21? His reference to God's salvation of the people during the Exodus (John 3:14-15 and Numbers 21:4-9) has both "earthly" and "divine" implications.
Also, Jesus' reference to Himself as "the Son of Man" (John 3:13-14, Daniel 7:13-14) implies "divine orchestration."
And what about the rest of the passage- John 16-21? Curious of how you understand Jesus' words and John's writing on "salvation."
For more on this passage, see "Searching for God Knows What, Part 6" at www.reverendrockstar.com
Chris, you mention:
"But back to passion - where in the Bible is the word passion used to describe how he felt about peace and justice?
EVERYWHERE! Almost every parable he told was about peace and justice. Actually, the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about peace and Justice. What did Jesus say that wasn't about peace and justice? You don't need the word "passion" to know that Jesus was passionate about peace and Justice.
Jeremy, you mentioned the exodus from Egypt. How is that not about peace and justice? Liberation from slavery is the most obvious reference to peace and justice that I could imagine. Jesus references it (as well as the prophets) because that it what he is passionate about and because he realizes that another liberation (from Rome and the corruption of the temple) is much needed.
All these stories are about following the OT ideals about creating a community of peace and justice as God commanded and as Jesus invisioned.
Yes, I do think the author of John makes a deeper case for a more spiritual meaning to Jesus, but I see that as a product of HIS understanding and the view of his Christian community several decades later. The purpose of John's gospel was to present a more structured theological presentation of Jesus' life and message to compete as a new religion, so of course it makes those claims about Jesus. It should! It is beautiful! Jesus had become something much larger than life for them (and for us) after his death. By then, Christ was resurrected in the lives of those who joined in his vision. Christ is much larger than Jesus. They (we) became his body as they (we) live out his mission to create a new kingdom of peace and justice.
It is about social justice and peace, but also used as an example for divine justice and peace. Again, another "both/and" situation.
I totally believe in living the mission of the new kingdom of justice and peace, and I believe that Jesus ushered in this new kingdom. It was the kingdom that the OT Jews so longed to see, and Jesus tells Nicodemus how to enter. The kingdom begins in this age, but will not be fully realized until the next.
The mistake of many in the OT is they were hoping for merely an earthly Messiah and missing the eternal implications. Likewise, many radical "end-timers" lose focus and miss the present-age application.
Again, I believe it's a both/and. Jesus is the Messiah and reigns in the hearts of His believers. Heavenly application? Absolutely. But also a present-age implication: rebirth in Christ not only secures an eternal destiny, but brings about change in one's day-to-day life today. He gives us redemption, and gives us the opportunity to participate in the redemption of our culture.
I think the difficulty is eliminated when we look more closely at the instances of the phrase "end of the world" (KJV) that is repeated in Matthew 13 39-40 and Matthew 24:3 and verse 20. The Greek word for "world" here is aion which we get the word eon which means a period, time or an "era". What Jesus says will end is this current era of evil and injustice which is full of suffering and oppression. I think it is a mistake to confuse that with some kind of cosmic end of the earth. It means he is looking for a change in power structure or in a nutshell, the end of Roman rule over Israel.
The only reason people connect the end of the "aion" with the end of the world is because they try to read the book of Revelation literally then read that back into the text in Matthew. Revelation is so obviously metaphorical that it almost seems silly to have to mention it.
"You don't need the word "passion" to know that Jesus was passionate about peace and Justice."
Agreed. But you were talking about the "passion" being misused when it's related to his suffering and death, and pointed to that sort of mistake as bad theology. I pointed out that the word "passion" as it appears in the Bible itself, refers to Jesus' suffering and death. Just trying to sew up the point that Gibson did not misuse the word, unless you think the KJV did.
I wasn't trying to say the word is misused by Gibson or the KJV. I'm saying that the idea that Jesus' passion was his death (cosmic sacrifice for mankind) is bad. I'm arguing that Jesus' passion was peace and justice but people later created this substitutionary atonement doctrine which is what I call "bad theology".
Post a Comment