Review: The Passion of the Christ

Last night I attended a screening of Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ. Gibson's ultra-violent take on the last dozen hours of Jesus' life raked in well over $20 million its first day in theaters, and has stoked water-cooler debates for weeks. Is "The Passion" spiritually moving, or just plain ugly? Is it true to the scriptures? And, most hotly argued in the press, is "The Passion of the Christ" anti-Semitic? Does it enflame the age-old charge of deicide - the murder of God - against the Jewish people?

The last question is the easiest to answer: Neither Mel Gibson nor his film seem on the face of it to be anti-Semitic. There are certainly some vicious Jewish men depicted in "The Passion" (the hateful ones are almost exclusively male), but there are also many moments of kindness, outrage and horror by Jews who oppose Jesus' arrest and execution. Although most of the Jewish leaders are portrayed as sneeringly corrupt politicians, Gibson does not seem compelled to extend their unquestionable guilt to all of the surrounding innocents. "The Passion" is hardly a call for retaliation against Jews ancient or modern, whatever else it may be.

As regards the second question, the director and his publicity team have repeated, mantra-like, the idea that "We're just filming what the Bible says."

That's misleading. You won't find Gibson's version of the Passion in your New Testament, no matter how hard you look. The script is actually a cocktail of (in no particular order): the Passion stories from four gospels, each with unique plotlines and points of view; the visions of a pair of eighteenth-century nuns; the Roman Catholic teachings about the Mass; archeological insights into ancient torture methods; visual "quotes" from Gibson's other films, including "Braveheart"; the traditional "Stations of the Cross" tableaus and passion plays; scenes and dialog of Gibson's own invention; horror movie scenarios; and a quote or two from (of all things) the Revelation of John.

Even the portions of the script that are direct quotations of scripture have been edited together into a form that is not found in any gospel. Caiaphas' unintentionally prophetic observation that it is better for one man to die on behalf of the whole nation, for example, is omitted. Pilate's role, on the other hand, is expanded well beyond scripture, with scenes observed of his personal life and struggles. Gibson chooses what parts of scripture to include, which ones to exclude, and which to expand upon beyond what scripture says.

The end result is probably what you might call "historical fiction" or a devotional story, with scripture as its jumping-off point. I do not question Mel Gibson's good faith in attempting to adapt the story of the Passion to the screen; it is, however, less than honest to claim that this is simply the putting of a camera to Jesus' story as told by scripture. It is far more of an personal interpretation of the biblical event than Gibson's publicists would like you to believe.

The first question I raised is perhaps the one I find most interesting, and troubling, now that I have seen "The Passion of the Christ" for myself. Far from being inspired by the film, I found myself dreading going to it beforehand, and feeling oddly empty after viewing it. I had hoped to find in this film a powerful depiction of God's grace toward sinners in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead, it seemed to me to fetishize Christ's suffering, dwelling perversely on every spurt of blood and scream of agony.

Put in its best possible light, the message of this film seems to be: "Look how much Jesus suffered!" Which is an important observation. Christ did indeed suffer.

What's missing is the reason for this suffering: "...out of love for you."

John 3:16 is such a beloved verse because it puts the death of Jesus into its correct context: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." The crucifixion, apart from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ, is a sick exercise in sadism. The spiritual power of the Passion story is the glimpse into the heart of Jesus, even in the midst of excruciating pain. Mel Gibson's film is so fixated on the physical suffering of the Christ that he never really shows us the heart of the man ...or the heart of God.

The tale of the Cross is always incomplete apart from the tale of the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, God glares down at us from the cross, condemning us for this outrageous crime against him. In the Resurrection, God declares the slate washed clean - forgiveness is achieved, death is conquered, and grace abounds for all sinners.

Gibson's Resurrection scene feels tacked on. After spending all his energy (and ours) on the gruesome punishment of Jesus, it as though he realizes that he must at least show the risen Christ before the credits roll. And so we have Jesus in the tomb, grim and naked, striding forth into the sunlight to the strains of a battle march. And then the credits roll. I couldn't help thinking, "My God, he's out for revenge! Jesus is back, and boy, is he ticked off." Look out, Jerusalem. Even in the Resurrection, grace appears to be in very short supply.

For those who know the story, whose lives are already filled with God's grace, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" might prove an enlightening, if mind-numbing visual aid on the horrors of the crucifixion. "Look how much Jesus suffered!"

If only Gibson had managed to capture the spirit of the Resurrection - "...out of love for you" - this might have been a supremely moving film. As it is, "The Passion of the Christ" is much closer in spirit to a two-hour encyclopedia entry on the torture and execution of Roman prisoners than it is to a spiritual classic.

Parental advisory: "The Passion of the Christ" contains extremely gruesome, horrifying violence. This film should not be attended by young children, period. Older children and sensitive adults would do well to plan on time to process the images after viewing this film.

UPDATED - Elanor's Photo Gallery

Elanor's Photo Gallery

Court Says States Need Not Finance Divinity Studies

Very upsetting news from the Supreme Court today.NY Times: Court Says States Need Not Finance Divinity Studies

The court ruled that states are free to exclude students who are otherwise eligible for scholarships on the basis of academic merit and financial need if they want to use the money to major in theology and train for the ministry. The 7-2 ruling found that this activity would not violate these students' free expression or the exercise of the religious beliefs, and therefore was not unconstitutional.

Although this specifically addressed state scholarships, I fail to see how theology students can qualify for any government-sponsored financial aid under this ruling, whether it is a grant, loan or scholarship, on the federal, state or local level. The principle that the court has upheld is that a student at an accredited academic institution pursuing an accredited degree program can (should?) be disqualified from government financial aid so as not to favor religion by investing public scholarship dollars in it.

Although I'm surprised at the company I'm keeping, I am solidly with Justices Scalia and Thomas, the lone dissenters, who see such a law as hostile to religion, rather than neutral. Why should, for example, Concordia be able to provide government scholarships to all of its students except the religion majors? Does this mean that a music major with an emphasis in performance can receive government assistance, but that one with an emphasis in church music cannot? The court has ruled that not all bachelor's degrees be treated equally by the government... by providing assistance to students in every other area of study, the government is effectively discouraging the practice of religion by frustrating and financially descriminating against the students who wish to become religious leaders.

It's obvious that these students are among the most idealistic in our academic institutions today, and that they are also among those who are most in need of financial assistance. Clergy are among the lowest-paid professionals in our country; there are few other master's degrees one can earn and still make less than the manager of the local McDonald's restaurant.

Theology students do not enter into their field of study for financial gain; however, they face huge educational costs and a lifetime of low-paying work in their vocation. They count, more than most students, on financial aid if they are to ever even begin to manage the crippling debt load.

The government is forbidden from giving religion and religious institutions preferential treatment simply because they are religious. It is, however, an outrage that the government should be permitted to subsidize every other academic program under the sun based on a student's need and merit, while refusing to support students within this one particular academic field.

The Supreme Court was wrong. Flat wrong.

I am disgusted.

Feedback on the car

From Shawn: "Time to get the groceries! I must admit that despite all rational thought, I have been eyeing cars in the same size class as what you got. My motivators are a little different that yours, but I must say you have good reason and I approve! Not sure if I like the line of the car along the back hatch, but I like the front and I LOVE the color!"

New car

When I looked at my loan statement in December, I noticed that the Intrepid was almost paid off. Since it's a 96 and has 89,000 miles on it, I've been kicking around whether to trade in. The issue since moving to rural North Dakota has been even more comelling, since the Intrepid doesn't even have anti-lock brakes, nevermind all-wheel or four-wheel drive.

I didn't expect that anything was going to be within my budget, so I was pleasantly surprised to run the numbers and see how reasonable a vehicle I can actually afford! =)



Today I'll be driving in to Fargo to pick up my "new" (2001) Subaru Impreza Outback Sport wagon. If you're familiar with the regular Subaru Outback wagons, it's got a lot in common, but it's shorter than a full wagon. (I'm not quite at a point in my life yet where I'm ready to drive an honest-to-God grocery-getting station wagon!) It has 57,000 fewer miles on it than my Intrepid, 5 fewer years, and I'm getting the 7 year/100,000 mile extended warranty, effectively giving me near-100% coverage for the next four years or 70,000 miles. And it all fits nicely within the auto allowance that's part of my contract already.

Nicest of all, it's got Subaru's all-wheel drive, which by all accounts is wonderful when the roads are less than great. Around here in the winter time, that's a real plus, especially if you need to get off the state highways. And it's small enough that the mileage is the same or a little better than the Intrepid's. (I don't have any need for a huge SUV that needs twice as much gas to go half as far. That was one of my main criteria - good mileage for the environment.)

It's a little stressful to be signing the paperwork (and all by myself, without a co-signer, for the first time), but I've run the numbers over and over again - without making a single change in my month-to-month budget, I can afford this, with money left over for repairs that aren't covered by my warranty or for other auto expenses, at the end of the year.

Now we'll see what the talk around the town is when the pastor is seen driving a "new" car. ;) "We're paying him too much!"

Texas "clods" up in arms

A local professor has provoked the entire community of Alpine, TX, by penning a "Mark-Twain sort of" article about the appalling ignorance of his neighbors. Death threats and egging by the "dumbest clods on the planet," as Dr. Sechrest described them, have ensued.

I'm sure just about everything in the offending article is an accurate description of small-town Texas. Still, I think I'd be a little bit frightened to call a bunch of proud Texans "appallingly ignorant, irrational, anti-intellectual, and, well, . . . just plain stupid" to their faces!

An interesting read.

Op-Ed Columnist: The Khan Artist

A scathing, but educational piece from the NY Times:

Maureen Dowd: "The Khan Artist"

Yahoo! News - U.S. to Let Lawyer to See 'Enemy Combatant' Padilla

"It's so disheartening. They're throwing us a bone, as if we should be thrilled that they can now listen to our attorney-client conversations after my client's been held incommunicado, based on their say-so, for over a year and a half."

- Donna Newman, lawyer for accused "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla

My feelings on this matter are well known. It's a blatant abuse of executive power and flaunting of the Constitution to deny an American citizen due process. Whether we like him or not (and Jose Padilla hasn't even been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one by a jury of his peers), Mr. Padilla has a constitutionally-guaranteed right to a speedy trial, to speak with his attorney privately, and to be released if he is not convicted of a crime in a court of law. The Bush administration has thumbed its nose at the Constitution in the first two cases, and will without a doubt turn Mr. Padilla over to a military tribunal if it fails to convict him in a court of law - a de facto case of double jeopardy, even if the framers of the Constitution never imagined such a process being devised to "work the edges" of legality.

Jose Padilla may very well be a bad man. Perhaps even a foiled terrorist. But that's for a jury to decide, not an elected official. George W. Bush does not have that power - no other branch of government besides the judicial must ever be given the power to pass judgment on an American citizen, or our Constitution will become a sham document.

We wish to "democratize" the world, but back at home we do shabby justice to our own Constitution and the citizens whose rights it was written to protect from the abuses of government.

What an embarrassment that so many Americans seem so damned content to accept this pathetic irony.

An innundation of (Christian) spam

I'm frustrated.

Somehow my e-mail address got on a spam list that seems to get sold specifically to "Christian" businesses. I've been getting a number of spams each week for the last month or so, all promoting this or that "Christian" business or ministry, from t-shirts to youth ministry CD-ROMs.

Now, I object to spam on general principle. It wastes my time and clogs the Internet (fully HALF of all e-mail sent in the world is spam... and you're foolish if you think it isn't figured into your Internet costs). But there's a special place in hell, I believe, for so-called "Christian" spammers. At least there should be.

Strong words, young pastor! Yes, but I stand by them.

I don't know a single person who appreciates spam. Obviously a tiny percentage must actually respond in order to keep the spammers in business, but even among those who occasionally buy a spammed product, I would venture to guess that they don't like or appreciate spam on the whole. The outcry in this country against spam is at least as loud as the outcry against telemarketers... people everywhere consider it such a despicable practice that they would gladly have it outlawed.

So why on earth would anyone want to mix up the good news of Jesus Christ with such a universally loathed practice?

Could God use some piece of spam to bring them the good news? I wouldn't say it's impossible. Then again, if God wanted to use Ellie's dog turds, left all over Litchville, to bring the gospel to this town, I wouldn't say that was impossible, either. God can obviously do whatever he pleases, whether it pleases me or not. That's one of the perks of being a deity.

Still, I doubt that God's calling anyone to a dog-turd ministry anytime soon.

In all seriousness, it's upsetting to see Christians turning to the crassest of marketing trends, slapping on a pious veneer, and calling the resulting freak "evangelism."

I suspect it's because we are a society driven by capitalism that we tend to envision evangelism as a certain specialized application of the market forces. How often do you hear well-intentioned people talking about "church shopping?" How often have congregations tried to reach a certain "target audience" to bring them to church? How often have you heard Christians, like those in the schlocky "Left Behind" series, using business language to describe God's gracious gift of salvation: we need to "complete the transaction" with Jesus before it's too late? How often have you been at congregational meetings where people show up to vote who have not darkened the doorstep of the church in the preceding eleven months... but think of themselves as "shareholders" of the church, anyway.

There are so many examples, it makes one's stomach turn.

The capitalist impulse in Americans is so strong, we struggle to see the world through any other lens. In a country where you are more likely to think of yourself as a "consumer" than as a "citizen," it makes perfect sense to assume that God is some big CEO in the sky, the great insider trader, and that the more God's people model themselves after a corporation, the greater their efficiency in the divine economy becomes.

But the kingdom of heaven is not a corporation, and God is not a businessman.

Salvation is a gift, not a transaction.

Evangelism is sharing the good news because it is good news, and has absolutely nothing to do with marketing or salesmanship.

And spam, no matter how nauseatingly "holy" it tries to be, is still spam. If that spam trips up even one person in their journey toward Christ, it should be condemned. And based on the numbers, I would guess it trips up far above 99% of the unlucky souls who receive it.

God is gracious, even to spammers. Meaning there probably is no special corner of hell for them, after all.

But there would be if this small-town parson had anything to say about it.

Long time no update!

The demands of job and puppy have kept me from updating for quite a while now! First of all, if you haven't already discovered them, there are new pictures from Ellie's visit to Hutchinson in her photo album. Check them out. =)

So, how's the puppy doing? Very well. She had a great time in Hutchinson, and thoroughly enjoyed meeting all the family. Grandma and Nancy were very impressed with her ability to sit on command (which has, of course, been supplemented with several other commands... when she's in the mood). Mom and Dad enjoyed all the puppy energy around the house for almost a week. Molly... well, Molly just put up with the puppy, for the most part. But we did catch her playing once or twice, despite herself.

Yesterday Ellie had an adventure - she went to watch basketball. One of the benefits of being in a small town is that people are a lot less uptight about pets (unlike the guy at the gas station on the way back home... hmph). We were invited over to watch the younger boys skirmish for their basketball practice. Afterward she got to romp in the gym with half a dozen crazy boys. It was lots of fun for everyone, and I was really happy at how good she was with a bunch of boys whom she didn't know, but who were all over her. Not an aggressive response at any point.

Her latest thing seems to be standing up with her front paws on something to see what she can see. She's been trying that trick on the coffee table downstairs ("No!"), on me, and even on the low windowsill in her room (where I'd forgetten I'd left a few pieces of her food, which she quickly found).

We go to the vet sometime in the next week. It'll be interesting to see how her weight has changed. 6.6 pounds last time... I'm predicting around 7.5 this time out.

For the Trekkers

If you enjoy the ongoing mission of the Starship Enterprise, you might owe it to yourself to check out New Voyages, the fan-produced miniseries at http://www.5yearmission.com.

The episodes pick up where the original 1960s series left off. The Enterprise was, as you may recall, on a "five-year mission," but the show lasted only three years. That leaves a full two seasons of missing time for the creators of New Voyages to explore. I'm downloading the first episode now (not for the broadband-challenged among you, I might add), but from the promo photos and FAQ, it looks like this will be at least as well produced as the original series.

And yes, they do have new young faces playing the old familiar roles. The accounts I've read say that the acting is, um... "Shatneresque." But that's fitting, too.

If you've got the bandwidth, take a look!