Demosophia

I haven't seen the movie, so my comment may lack some authority, but it seems to me that this is not necessarily a doctrinal failure. The movie is not about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, it's about The Passion of Jesus. Obviously, the Passion needs to be understood in context, but I don't think it is a doctrinal flaw that this film doesn't provide that context. The point of the the Passion is that Jesus suffered and died for our sins, and that is the story this movie tells.

The point is that this [suffering] is the focus of film, and the fact that it's all people talk about means that it's also apparently the focus of Christianity itself.

Um, say what? Maybe I misunderstand.

The logic that because an actor named Mel Gibson chose to make a film focusing on Christ's suffering, and that everyone is talking about this (most prominent) aspect of his film, it "means" that Christ's suffering is the "focus of Christianity itself", seems not quite correct to me.

Correct me if I misunderstand.

The logic that because an actor named Mel Gibson chose to make a film focusing on Christ's suffering, and that everyone is talking about this (most prominent) aspect of his film, it "means" that Christ's suffering is the "focus of Christianity itself", seems not quite correct to me.

It just seems that if the focus of Christianity were really on the Resurrection then every once in awhile someone might point out that there was nothing unique in the crucifixion, and that it therefore can't really be the critical element in Christ's message. I guess I think "The Passion" is, itself, a doctrinal falure, because I don't believe in the notion of a blood sacrifice. I see almost no one making the observation that there's vastly more interest in "the passion," which was unfortunately not all that extraordinary, than in the most important and extraordinary event in all of human history.

The focus seems to be completely on a kind of "souped-up blood sacrifice" that I'm not sure has any real scriptural reference. The test of being a Christian is not "do you believe that Christ died for your sins" but "do you believe in the Resurrection." The former is a system or doctrine that is really fundamentally pagan in nature. The latter isn't.

I now realize this is controversial. That hadn't dawned on me before, because I took it for granted that the distinction was obvious. The Gibson movie is telling me that this pagan outlook still has a powerful hold on people. More than that, it tells me that the alternative perspective is barely recognized.

It just seems that if the focus of Christianity were really on the Resurrection then every once in awhile someone might point out that there was nothing unique in the crucifixion, and that it therefore can't really be the critical element in Christ's message.

1. some people do point that out. you think you're hte only one? 2. for those who don't, maybe it's because they *do* think there was something unique in the crucifixion. No, not because it was a unique method of execution, because you're right it wasn't. Because of who was crucified. And, the fact that he *chose* to go through it rather than, say, whippin' up some Godly magic and escaping.

I guess I think "The Passion" is, itself, a doctrinal falure,

But it's a movie, not "doctrine". no?

because I don't believe in the notion of a blood sacrifice.

ok, but sacrifice (dunno bout "blood sacrifice") was an integral part of the symbolism of Christ's act. Like, the people of that time *did* believe in blood sacrifice (lambs, whatever), this is why Christ's sacrifice was needed, as a kind of ultimate blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices. At least this is how I understand Christian theology. You're free to "not believe" in blood sacrifice all you want (hell, I don't "believe" in it either) but to deny that it is (or, insist that it not be) a symbolic component of Christian origins seems strange

I see almost no one making the observation that there's vastly more interest in "the passion,"

But it's perfectly *natural* for there to be vastly more interest in the passion than in other stuff. This guy Mel Gibson just made a movie focusin' on it for pete's sake. If his movie had focused on Christ raising Lazarus, or the lectures he delivered in the Temple, I reckon we'd all be talking about that stuff too.

It's true enough to say that Mel Gibson himself is a bit obsessed with/focused on "the passion", and that this focus is probably informed by his particular Catholic sect, and that the movie is a product of that. fine. But, given that he's made this particular movie and not some other movie, what exactly are the Christians all supposed to talk about in their movie reviews?

The test of being a Christian is not "do you believe that Christ died for your sins" but "do you believe in the Resurrection." The former is a system or doctrine that is really fundamentally pagan in nature. The latter isn't.

heh, guess I just don't deign to tell Christians what their test for being Christian is. Again, from all I've read the "sacrifice" aspect *was* important because this was a society with elaborate animal-killing rituals and rules, and Christ was trying to make an imprint there as the messiah.

My memory is faulty but I think a lot of this "sacrifice" interpretation comes from Paul.

The Gibson movie is telling me that this pagan outlook still has a powerful hold on people. More than that, it tells me that the alternative perspective is barely recognized.

but what I"m saying is that you're interpretation is flawed. The Gibson movie is telling you that people are talking about the Gibson movie. There are many aspects of Christ's life and deeds whcih could have been the focus of a movie. Had Gibson chose something else, to focus a movie on, people would all be talking about that and (i can only conclude) you'd be here complaining that *that* is the "focus" of Christianity when you don't think it should be. Guess I just think you're jumping to conclusions.

No, not because it was a unique method of execution, because you're right it wasn't. Because of who was crucified. And, the fact that he *chose* to go through it rather than, say, whippin' up some Godly magic and escaping.

And how do we know that He was special? This really is a little tough to get around. Everything seems to circle back to the Resurrection, not the Crucifixion. The Crucifixion was important only because of the Resurrection. One might ask whether the Crucifixion was important at all, beyond the fact that it set up the Resurrection in a particularly dramatic way for that small group of original testifiers. And the only real indication we have that it happened at all, is the extraordinary behavior of those testifiers throughout the balance of their lives. As one fellow up it: "People will not suffer torture and death, with a clear exit in front of them, for sake of a lie."

But it's a movie, not "doctrine". no?

Well it's the title of a movie, but there's a long history of "passion plays" upon which it was based, and the term clearly refers to the doctrine of the blood sacrifice in a generic sense. Well, that's my understanding anyway.

ok, but sacrifice (dunno bout "blood sacrifice") was an integral part of the symbolism of Christ's act. Like, the people of that time *did* believe in blood sacrifice (lambs, whatever), this is why Christ's sacrifice was needed, as a kind of ultimate blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices.

Yes exactly. And neither you nor I are living in those times, nor to be have a blood sacrifice requirement for expiation of anything other than murder or treason, and a substitute simply isn't acceptable in those instances. The whole business is paganistic. Why would I be interested, other than in a purely historical sense, about what it meant originally to the first Christians? There's just way too much ou-la-la there, for me to conclude that Christianity has moved very for from those original paganistic requirements. And the bottom line is that it simply has no value, for me. I mean, other than as a historical curiosity.

But it's perfectly *natural* for there to be vastly more interest in the passion than in other stuff. This guy Mel Gibson just made a movie focusin' on it for pete's sake. If his movie had focused on Christ raising Lazarus, or the lectures he delivered in the Temple, I reckon we'd all be talking about that stuff too.

I'll bet we wouldn't be talking about it at all. It's not really movie material. The drama in it is really too much for a movie to capture. It's almost too much to conceive. But we're big boys living in the 20thh Century. Maybe we should take a shot.

I just don't deign to tell Christians what their test for being Christian is.

Yeah, but are they?

Guess I just think you're jumping to conclusions.

I don't think so. I can't prove it in a mathematical or even an empirical sense. I have this notion in my head about what's appropriate. It's a little like my reaction to the Diana tragedy. I thought it deserved about 15 minutes in prime time, because she was after all a princess, and she did a lot of good stuff about land mines, etc. But there was just something unseemly about the preoccupation over a period of weeks. Something more was going on than the death of a princess. It was something that really had very very little to do with Diana herself. Those events afforded an X-ray look an the innards of our western culture and it's collective and personal longings.

This movie phenomenon isn't as big, nor does it touch such a broad swath of people... but that's partly because we know it's make-believe. And in this case, at least for me, it's really what people aren't saying and doing, that's revealing. I may be missing it, but I just don't see anyone objecting with a statement like: "But that's not what Christianity is about."

Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks that... and that's rather interesting too, because for me it's almost axiomatic. Well, I suppose I should go see it for myself before coming to that conclusion.

The Crucifixion was important only because of the Resurrection.

I don't disagree, personally. The important thing is *that* he was executed, now *how*, exactly, because this sets up the resurrection. Yes, that accords w/my view of things. However, Mel Gibson has apparently meditated on Jesus's path to execution, and decided to make a movie dramatizing it, and now people are talking about that movie. Um, so what's your point exactly?

And neither you nor I are living in those times, nor to be have a blood sacrifice requirement for expiation of anything other than murder or treason, and a substitute simply isn't acceptable in those instances. The whole business is paganistic.

I understand that that *is* the Christian view of pre-Christian Judean practices such as sacrifice, etc. I guess my reaction here is still "so what". It's part of the symbolic heritage of Christianity. (I would say the same thing about "communion", is that not *also* of "pagan" ancestry, dating back to, perhaps, Mithraism or something like that, as I recall?) Why should a movie be required to "edit out" aspects of Christianity's roots? Why should not people talk about or be interested in them? I still have this feeling I'm missing something key about what you're trying to say.

I surely understand "we're not pagans anymore so blood sacrifice isn't important *to us*". But again, it was important *to them*. And to me, that's always been part of the power of the story, that God "so loved the world" that he "gave his only son" in a vulgar, violent, bloody symbolic sacrifice *because that's what would have made an impression upon the people of that time*. So I think one can be affected by the power of the pagan symbolism without actually being a pagan ;-)

Why would I be interested, other than in a purely historical sense, about what it meant originally to the first Christians?

I don't know. Be interested, or don't. I am interested in such a thing. (Although I don't know that it's in "other than in a purely historical sense". Maybe I'm interested in precisely a purely historical sense. Um, so what?) Is this the point you wanted to convey, "you're not interested"?

There's just way too much ou-la-la there, for me to conclude that Christianity has moved very for from those original paganistic requirements.

Again, you're concluding something about "Christianity", from a Mel Gibson movie. Do you really not understand the objection to this?

[I just don't deign to tell Christians what their test for being Christian is.]

Yeah, but are they?

Maybe you should tell me?

I just don't see anyone objecting with a statement like: "But that's not what Christianity is about."

Why should they have to? The movie is not entitled "What Christianity Is About". It's entitled "The Passion". I would think most Christians would assume that no confusion is possible (of course in your case this assumption has proved incorrect)

I understand that that *is* the Christian view of pre-Christian Judean practices such as sacrifice, etc. I guess my reaction here is still "so what". It's part of the symbolic heritage of Christianity. (I would say the same thing about "communion", is that not *also* of "pagan" ancestry, dating back to, perhaps, Mithraism or something like that, as I recall?) Why should a movie be required to "edit out" aspects of Christianity's roots?

Well I certainly hope they don't edit it out. How in the world would I know what they really think, or how it might compel an adjustment of my position? I'm just being expressive here, not promoting public policy or anything. Just talking about my own feelings, basically. Changes to my own spiritual commitments. As I said, I've been occupied for awhile in consideration of this fundamentalist position on the sacrifice, and just haven't seen it clearly. I've discussed other aspects of fundamentalist belief in comments on the Revelation of St. John elsewhere. My starting point is usually to assume they have a valid position, and proceed from there. If I run into a problem, I adjust my position relative to theirs. I'm still mulling this one over.

Sorry Peter, but this is my blog, you were rude, AND YOU WERE SHOUTING AT ME!

Well, I'm new to you, so I'm not entirely sure from what personal position you're coming. Still, I've come across objections similar to yours from Christians and non-Christians alike, so I'll take a stab at commenting.

I reckon that if God became human in an era of limited global exploration and zero mass communication, with the result being a few short books and a bit of zealous word-of-mouth promotion, He'd want every part of His earthly story to carry some significance. The "test" of being a Christian, I would say, is neither of your possibilities, but rather: "Do you believe that Jesus was God?" (In modern times, some people think "... was a really cool dude" suffices.) For some Christians, why Christ was crucified isn't the crucial question; He could have been euthanized, for all they care. (You might be able to tell that I'm of the other camp.)

Still, it seems to limit God's capacity for planning and thematic intricacy to suggest that one question overshadows another. Blixa's comment translates theologically: we're talking about it because Mel made the movie. Each question is important in its way; some people need one lesson more; some eras have strayed from a particular part of the entire narrative of Christ's coming. The relevant debate, therefore, is whether Gibson is correct that we need to be reminded of the Passion in our era.

Your reference to the Passion's being "fundamentally pagan" rings oddly in my ear. "Pagan" is essentially a relative term to Christianity. There can't be much doubt that the aspect of the Gospels to which you object has been with the Church from the very beginning. Indeed, Christ referred to His own death beforehand, telling us to think of His body and blood when we eat and drink. He reformed the covenant (getting rid of all that icky animal sacrificing) and expanded it.

It's a big topic, and it's late, so I'll get to the point: our society tends to want the Resurrection with out the Passion; the glory without the sacrifice; the forgiveness without the repentence. The symbolism of the cross and the crucifixion is exactly what we need.

I've been told that Mel actually does deal with the resurrection, so apparently what I'm looking at is a social phenomenon launched by the Gibson movie, but not necessarily bound up with it.

our society tends to want the Resurrection with out the Passion; the glory without the sacrifice; the forgiveness without the repentence. The symbolism of the cross and the crucifixion is exactly what we need.

I understand what you're saying, but I just have a hunch we really need something entirely different altogether. The Passion is a formula that has been used and abused for thousands of years, and look where it got us? Perhaps you're right that we need to be reminded, but if that's the only input then I think we can count on getting the same old result.

Anyway, it's not really fair to comment on the movie further without having seen it. So I have two movies on the agenda: The Passion and The Fog of War.

Oh yeah, one other thing. How do we know He's God? Not because he suffered more than anyone else, surely?

Oh yeah, and there's another problem with your formulation. If what I need is to go through the crucifixion in order to "get to the resurrection," what was His function, exactly? I'm really trying to get this equation to come out right, but it never quite adds up.

How do we know He's God? Not because he suffered more than anyone else, surely?
— Well, no. I'm not sure what in my comment suggests these questions.

If what I need is to go through the crucifixion in order to "get to the resurrection," what was His function, exactly?
— Not sure what sort of answer would be appropriate, here. For one thing, we're talking about the aspects of Christ's story, and the capital letters on Resurrection and Passion indicated His. For another, I thought my subsequent clauses gave illustration of how those aspects translate into our lives. Obviously, Christ's coming didn't raise us up into Heaven, leaving work to be done, some of it by us.

Justin:

Well, no. I'm not sure what in my comment suggests these questions.

You indicated that the proper test of whether a person is a "Christian" concerns whether or not that person believes Jesus is God (or the Son of God, etc.). And my point is that, for this to be a fair question there must be something about the man that unequivocally and unambiguously transcends his being a "mere man." You could argue that he performed miracles, but apparently so have a lot of others who haven't necessarily been considered "God." (Whether you believe or discount these accounts is another matter, but assuming you believe them...) On the other hand, deliberately subjecting oneself to being murdered and subsequently returning from the dead to walk again on earth, is about the only "pure" evidence we have. And of course we have it second hand, but that's another matter. And again, what is unique about that circumstance isn't the crucifixion, because that was all-too-common. Absent the Resurrection it's all just a dramatic and tragic story, but one that has surely been surpassed in both drama and tragedy many times.

If what I need is to go through the crucifixion in order to "get to the resurrection," what was His function, exactly? — Not sure what sort of answer would be appropriate, here. For one thing, we're talking about the aspects of Christ's story, and the capital letters on Resurrection and Passion indicated His.

You said "our society tends to want the Resurrection with out the Passion." And my point is, isn't that what we're supposed to want? I don't wish to be crucified in order to attain the resurrection, do you? I thought, according to doctrine, that "He paid that price for us." Perhaps you mean that having an emotional appreciation for that price gives us some insight into what has been avoided, but again that all depends on what you believe about the Resurrection.

For another, I thought my subsequent clauses gave illustration of how those aspects translate into our lives. Obviously, Christ's coming didn't raise us up into Heaven, leaving work to be done, some of it by us.

My concern is whether or not I'm buying into a primitive belief system, or whether there is something compelling that transcends the sheer emotional impact of the thing. I see people reacting primarily in line with the emotional stimulae of the movie, in about the same way people have always reacted to the "Passion." I guess I just don't see how the notion of a "blood sacrifice" has relevance, beyond pure tradition. I know the doctrine, but I'm one of those people who simply doesn't take things at face value. Furthermore, if I read the Gospels correctly, I'm not supposed to. Were I to do that with regard to Christian doctrine I really wouldn't be much more than a "Christian Pharisee," professing belief without any real faith.

For instance, I don't believe in "The Rapture," or anything like it, because it violates the whole concept of progress in the human condition (or even regression). I don't think any sort of standard argument could convince me otherwise, because any other reason for waiting an additional 2,000+ years and then removing the cadre of the faithful pricesly when they'd be needed the most just seems like an "idiot plot." More to the point, it just violates everything I know intuitively or by intensely paying attention. To believe such a thing would be comparable to believing that Jon Binet Ramsey was killed in self defense, or something. It's just too odd to even consider, seriously.

The reactions to The Passion are telling me that there's a serious and fundamental error in how this story is told, and what it means.

... for this to be a fair question there must be something about the man that unequivocally and unambiguously transcends his being a "mere man."

My conception, and experience, of God and humanity's reaction to Him isn't that one "something" will ever be sufficiently unequivocal. The Resurrection surely cinched the apostles' belief, but it seems to me that the "single something" is more the resonance of Jesus' story with our experience of life and understanding of history, including the Jewish tradition from which Christianity grew, Jesus' life, and subsequent events. The Resurrection is crucial, of course, but so is the Passion.

Perhaps you mean that having an emotional appreciation for that price gives us some insight into what has been avoided, but again that all depends on what you believe about the Resurrection.

Again, I was using the capitalized events emblematically. We do not have to be crucified to be resurrected, but neither are we resurrected in glory as a matter of course. We still have a role to play, and Jesus' earthly life, by His own teaching, gives us a framework for understanding what is required of us. (Or are you just playing with me?)

The Resurrection surely cinched the apostles' belief, but it seems to me that the "single something" is more the resonance of Jesus' story with our experience of life and understanding of history, including the Jewish tradition from which Christianity grew, Jesus' life, and subsequent events.

This is almost as though He's a "cultural" savior. I don't mean to denigrate what you're saying, but unless this is a universal story it just doesn't resonate with me that much. I'm not sure whether I'm losing my grip on it, or it's losing it's grip on me, though.

Again, I was using the capitalized events emblematically. We do not have to be crucified to be resurrected, but neither are we resurrected in glory as a matter of course. We still have a role to play, and Jesus' earthly life, by His own teaching, gives us a framework for understanding what is required of us. (Or are you just playing with me?)

Attempting to hold onto something, even with a lot of the doctrinal stuff slipping away from me, it seems that there's a shelf life to Christianity. I have no idea what that is, but the very notion of a "wrap up" in Revelation suggests relevance to a particular era. And I can almost see that this event (meaning the Crucifixion and Resurrection) was a kind of "shove" in the right direction, just before the Roman culture's weaknesses were about to become a permanent state of cruelty. But this evil apparently emerged later within Christianity, in the Inquisition. However, it might be that the evil manifested in the Inquisition would have been even worse in the absence of Christianity (under a pagan dispensation). And the prophesied "return" that never quite comes to fruition isn't physical return, but simply the working out of the liberal ideal, for which Jesus was a "perfect" manifestation. (He was certainly the perfect Stoic, which many feel was the inspiration and origin of liberalism.)

If you read Plato's Republic it'll give you the heebie-jeebies, because Plato seems literally to be writing about Jesus 400 years before the fact. It's all about "seeming good" versus "being good," and the comparison the Greek philosopher makes is between the tyrant, who is taken to be a good and just person by all, and who is elevated to supreme power over men, versus "the good" who is taken by all to be evil, and persecuted and tortured. "Which of these" Plato says "is truly happy?" And he concludes that "the good" is ultimately happier than the tyrant, even if there is no afterlife in which scores are settled.

(And by the way, The Republic contains the first references to "The Beast" and even the "666" reference, which was not a numerical 666, but 6 to the third power. It's considered a "perfect number" because 3^3+4^3+5^3=6^3. And they placed some sort of significance to the number in terms of an organizing principle for society.)

My theory about Revelation is that it was intended to speak directly to the Greeks and Romans through idioms in The Republic, because that was a literature that everyone was familiar with. The key to understanding Revelation is therefore The Republic. I don't know why this isn't more generally recognized.

But the bottom line for me I that I just no longer relate to the conventional views about Christianity. Perhaps I'm just in a phase, or something. But no, I'm not pulling your leg. I guess

This is almost as though He's a "cultural" savior. I don't mean to denigrate what you're saying, but unless this is a universal story it just doesn't resonate with me that much.

I don't think I adequately captured what I meant in the statement to which you're responding, here. I mean the resonance that, if approached from a presumption of faith, the story is consistent. Then, where it does not give the appearance of consistency, the contradicting parts can be sort of decoded to reveal a deeper truth. The problem that I think our culture has is that we're too quick to declare our logic complete, without having given adequate measure to faith.

If we at least assume it possible that Jesus' coming was meant to be the central statement of God for millennia at least, given human nature, it would have to have various ways of being unfolded. Simple directness would have fallen, in the distance of time, to desire-driven obfuscation.

And the prophesied "return" that never quite comes to fruition isn't physical return, but simply the working out of the liberal ideal, for which Jesus was a "perfect" manifestation.

Even in this, though, don't you see the necessity of the external perspective of God? And if so, then there's reason to believe in the more-spiritual claims. At least for Catholics, among whom I am counted, the spiritual and physical are inextricable. Jesus, in that sense, may not appear in the form that had relevance to First Century crowd, but He wouldn't be just an abstract notion. And we're notoriously bad at accepting heavens-on-earth.

As for "conventional views about Christianity," another of our problems, from where I sit, is that we either focus on the externalities of convention or evolve its essence away. There's an echo, in that, to the spirit/physical concept, too.

I don't think I adequately captured what I meant in the statement to which you're responding, here. I mean the resonance that, if approached from a presumption of faith, the story is consistent. Then, where it does not give the appearance of consistency, the contradicting parts can be sort of decoded to reveal a deeper truth. The problem that I think our culture has is that we're too quick to declare our logic complete, without having given adequate measure to faith.

I'm having a bit of a problem understanding you here. I suppose I could say I've taken this about as far as I can short of some sort of revelation that's based on my particular "Rosetta Stone." Even there, though, I'd be concerned about what the cultists call "magical thinking" if the insight didn't synch up to a deeper, but objective, truth. In other words if the faith that leads me to this deeper truth also necessitates that I conclude 2+2=5 I'd get a kick out of it, but probably wouldn't change my mind about anything. I'd just figure the universe is a little... odd.

Simple directness would have fallen, in the distance of time, to desire-driven obfuscation.

That one went completely over my head. I have no idea what we mean by this.

And the prophesied "return" that never quite comes to fruition isn't physical return, but simply the working out of the liberal ideal, for which Jesus was a "perfect" manifestation.

Even in this, though, don't you see the necessity of the external perspective of God?

I guess I see the working out of a glorious principle. Definitely some good news. Bucky Fuller used to describe this sort of thing as pattern correspondence, like lining up a whole stack of Hollerith cards and finding that three holes go all the way through the deck. It's definitely an indication of something profound, but may not be an indication of "God," necessarily.

I'll be frank with you about the physical/spiritual thing. I don't think either exists, ultimately. Both amount to memes, or errors in thought, about the nature of things.

Nice talking with you. I had a look at your website. When I get caught up I'll give it a closer look.

By this:

Simple directness would have fallen, in the distance of time, to desire-driven obfuscation.

I meant that the Gospels must be able to unfold (in some sense) over time. The Resurrection isn't sufficient, in itself, because (as we've plenty of evidence) human beings will tend to explain such one-time events away given no other incentive to believe.

I'll be frank with you about the physical/spiritual thing. I don't think either exists, ultimately. Both amount to memes, or errors in thought, about the nature of things.

What do you mean, here? Are you talking quantum physics or somesuch?

As for 2+2=5, I tackled that here.