'The Passion of the Christ' is helpful to no one

Religious Views, By Howard Bess

As a Christian minister, I knew I had to see Mel Gibson's "The Passion." Too many people were asking me what I thought about the film that is racing through the American scene. I had to go. Here is my reaction.

The film comes from "the blood sacrifice wing" of the Christian Church. Following the death of Jesus a faithful band of followers shared the stories that Jesus told and repeated the words that he spoke. They talked passionately about the life he lived and the death that he suffered. They spoke of the empty tomb and the impact of their resurrected Christ. They tried to understand his impact on their lives.

Eventually many followers interpreted his life against the background of the animal sacrifice system of their ancestors. The cross became the altar on which the blood of Christ was spilt to satisfy the requirement of a just God. Without the blood sacrifice, sins could not be forgiven. The writer of the New Testament book of Hebrews lays out the most detailed description of the interpretation. The key statement is "for without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin."

The interpretation given in Hebrews is most consistently perpetuated in the Roman Catholic Mass. It is also central to the celebration of communion in many Protestant churches. The chalice of wine is raised and the priest declares "This is the blood of Christ."

Mel Gibson is a Christian in this blood sacrifice tradition. He has made a bloody, gory movie to make the message plain.

No one should believe that the blood sacrifice tradition of the Bible literature goes unchallenged. The Bible should be read and studied as an ongoing argument between factions of the believing community. Faithful believers of the Old and New Testaments often took differing points of view. They protested and argued. The protest against the blood sacrifice wing of the Faith comes from "the prophetic wing" of the believing community. The roots of the prophetic wing of the church are found in the Old Testament. The prophet Isaiah is a good example. Isaiah presents God as saying "I do not delight in the blood of bulls or lambs or goats." The Lord is presented as saying "learn to do good, seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow."

The prophet Micah declares "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God?"

The prophetic understanding is also found in abundance in the New Testament. In Paul's Galatian letter, he writes "And the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, long-suffering. Against such there is no law." He also writes "The whole law is summed up in one command. You shall love your neighbor as yourself "

James puts it this way. "Religion that is pure before God is this. Care for orphans and widows."

I sincerely believe that the God served by the prophets finds Mel Gibson's portrayal of the death of Jesus as disgusting and revolting. Long ago, I abandoned the blood sacrifice wing of the church and committed my life to the prophetic wing.

More needs to be said about Gibson's abomination. No one should think that this is a presentation of the Biblical account of the death of Jesus. Much of the critical dialog of the film comes from sources outside of the Bible. Some of it is created by Gibson himself. Other key parts of the dialog come from a late 18th, early 19th century nun, Ann Catherine Emmerich who had visions of the events of Jesus' death. The material about the role of Pilate's wife and her relationship with the two Marys comes from the reported visions of the nun.

The film is further distorted by Gibson's interpretive hand. The flogging of Jesus ordered by Pilate is reported in the Bible in one short phrase. In the movie account the flogging becomes 10 minutes of gory film focused on the beating. The amount of blood that was shed in the film was far more than a human being has. If such a beating had taken place, Jesus' death would have taken place at the scene of the flogging, not on the cross.

During the ordeal of Jesus' trial and flogging a shadowy figure of Satan lurks. In this manner, Gibson inserts an essential dualism that is not present in the Bible account. There is no mention of the presence of Satan in the Bible account.

Over and over again the smirking face and taunting words of the Jewish high priest appears on the screen. Jews have every reason to complain about Gibson's portrayal of the role of Jews in the death of Jesus. Gibson's denials mean little. The screen tells the story.

As I reflected on the film, several thoughts have come to mind. First, I would never deny that crucifixion was a terrible death. Further, public humiliation of a person being crucified was a part of the process. Jesus suffered a horrible death. He died because he criticized the political, social, economic and religious practices of his day. He died on behalf of every contemporary person who suffered injustice. In a larger sense, he died for every person who has ever suffered injustice.

The film uses the artistic tool of hyperbole (exaggeration for effect). The film was exaggeration from beginning to end. Hyperbole is a legitimate and useful tool of artistic expression. Gibson has every right to use hyperbole in a movie that he financed himself However, I ask "Is there anything redeeming about his use of hyperbole?" Our society is suffering from too much hyperbole, especially about crime, violence and war. No society needs a film like "The Passion."

Gibson's "Passion" is a disservice to our society and the Christian churches.

The Rev. Howard Bess is the pastor of Church of the Covenant in Palmer.