Friday, April 06, 2007
Thoughts on the death of Jesus
As a response to my earlier post about Holy Week - Friday, Chris W. mentioned that one of the common definitions of the word "passion" includes a reference to the passion of Christ and the martyrs in general. I think this shows how bad theology has made its way into our language and how the values of empire have made their way into our theology. Chris didn't like my take on Mel Gibson's movie and I understand why, but I think my critique is valid. I've moved my response to this post because I think it is important and I want to get other comments on how the common understanding of Jesus' passion is either misplaced or accurately portrayed in that movie as well as other places.
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 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 focused 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 like he had done the in the garden? Was his life somehow more valuable because he was macho and could endure pain? What if he had rejected his teaching momentarily to save his life? Would it change what he said and what he stood for?
I suspect this type of logic is more a result of a few too many John Wayne movies (or Greek myths) rather than good theology. I think it is a result of Christianity setting our Lord against the heroic gods of the Greeks and Romans. 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 do believe that Jesus faced death with honor, but when I imagine the event I imagine Jesus crying. Not just because of the pain and suffering, but because he realized that once again the Empire was winning the battle and there would be many more losses like this before his vision might become reality.
5 comments:
I have only a Protestant churchgoer understanding of theology, but I always understood the Passion in the same way my dictionary describes it: "the suffering of Christ in the period following the Last Supper and including the Cricifixion."
The same dictionary says that the word comes from the Latin word for suffering.
If Christian theology is to be believed, then the physical abuse that Jesus received was the least of his worries at that point - remember that He had the weight of the sins of everyone in the past, present and future on Him.
That's a lot worse than the hours of beatings in Mel Gibson's S&M porno film. (No, I haven't seen the movie and don't intend to.) To the extent that Gibson's movie wallows in the physical abuse, it's missing the real point of the Passion.
Mike,
My Latin isn't good and my Latin dictionaries are in my office -- no help there -- but the word passion comes from the Latin patior, which means to suffer or to endure. It's the basis of our English word patience and patient.
Now, I think that the Gibson movie went overboard in its graphic depiction of the crucifixion, but the word passion is rightfully applied to the cross. The word passion, of course, has another meaning for us.
The word impassability also comes from this root, it is a doctrine of the church that insists that God cannot change or suffer. Thus, as the church became dependent on Greek thought it came to understand God to be impassible-- Thus, on the cross it is the human Jesus not the divine Jesus who suffers. What is key to the theology of people like Moltmann is that they overturn this traditional idea and insist that God does suffer and that in Jesus God experiences our sufferings on the cross -- he is thus our fellow sufferer. He's not the substitute for our sins but one who participates in our suffering-- thus the Crucified God.
So, I don't think the equation of passion and the cross is a matter of bad theology, but is instead a matter of nuance and interpretation.
I agree Bob, thanks for the help. I think the problem I have is not that the word "passion" was used at one time to mean Jesus' suffering, that may have been correct at some point, but I have a problem that this mentality infected our theology and that someone in the 21st century didn't realize what the word "passion" now means for the audience of that movie.
The movie, like Evangelical theology, focuses on Jesus death and resurrection story but misses his life and message.
Mike,
You know as I watched that movie through it's entirety I was numbed by the graphic nature of the torture he's portrayed as enduring. In reality, had he endured the amount of pre-crucifixion torture as shown in the movie, it would have taken superhuman strength to get to Golgotha.
What I think is important to note is that the movie doesn't connect with traditional Evangelical understandings of the cross that focus more on the transaction than the actual suffering of Jesus -- this was very much a Medieval Catholic portrayal not an Evangelical one.
As for the resurrection -- to get back to my experience of the movie -- I was so numbed by the violence that I longed for the resurrection -- which in the movie passed by in a matter of seconds. It was so brief that I was left in the darkness of the violence. There was no hope in the movie, which is why I was surprised at its reception in the Evangelical Community.
As for the actual life and teachings of Jesus, this is indeed a central problem in traditional Christian thought which seems to have little use for what happened between Christmas and Good Friday.
I would love to know who you got your blog to stretch across the whole page. I'm goin' nuts over that one.
Did Jesus die? or was he just put on hold?
Post a Comment