'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST'

February 2004
		Mel Gibson's controversial movie, "The Passion of the Christ," opened Ash Wednesday to mixed reviews. Two theology professors take your questions on the religious and philosophical questions surrounding the film.

Forum Introduction What viewpoint does the Vatican have on Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich? Why would her book on the Passion be or why should it not be a source for depicting the story on film? I am confused about the movie's depiction of the central idea of Christianity as the crucifixion of Jesus. Do you recognize modern-day movies as the new art form in the 21st century in communicating religious messages/themes and specifically the Christian message? If Mel Gibson is in a conservative movement within Catholism that rejects the reforms of Vatican II, wouldn't it follow that he would reject the declaration of that body that Jews were not responsible for Jesus' death? What evidence would you give that Protestant theology has minimized the crucifixion; and would it therefore follow that Catholic theology has minimized the resurrection? Mel Gibson claims the movie is historically accurate but in actuality, isn't the story of Jesus' crucifixion portrayed in the Gospels? So aren't there 6 or so different versions of the story? Where is he getting his historical evidence? Do you feel comfortable with the artistic license Mel Gibson exercised in the dialogue, and a number of events, not found in the Gospels, both personally and theologically?	Lauren Kurilchik of Sykesville, Maryland asks: Dear Mssrs: I am confused about the movie's depiction of the central idea of Christianity as the crucifixion of Jesus. I was taught that it is the resurrection of Christ which is central to this religion and the message of hope engrained in Christ's resurrection: not the death of Christ. I am disappointed that Mr. Gibson chose to fixate on something that is essentially a catalyst for the real purpose of Jesus Christ's on Earth - his rising from the dead and subsequent visitation to his apostles and followers. It would have been far more meaningful and interesting to me had he chosen to focus on Christ's resurrection and the period constituting the formation of the Church than the material he chose. I'd be interested in your views on this perspective of Christianity. Dr. Robert Johnston responds: You might helpfully look in the Bible at I Corinthians, where Paul says in chapter one that he preaches Christ crucified. Again in I Corinthians 15 where Paul speaks at length of the resurrection, it is in the context of his message about Christ crucified. Gibson was not trying to tell the whole Jesus story. In fact that has often been done. What he was trying to do was to focus in on one 12 hour period. We might wish he had concentrated on Jesus' teaching and healing ministry or on the resurrection, both of these are also central in the Gospel accounts. But that was not his intention. I think it is counterproductive to criticize someone for something they did not intent to do. Better, to concentrate on whether Gibson's portrayal of the cross (his intention) was powerful, consistent with the biblical accounts, etc. You might, for example, ask if the movie is more violent than the biblical accounts. And the answer is yes. The biblical accounts are restrained. But so too are the Roman accounts of crucifixions during the time. It seems that the crucifixions were so horrendous and so pervasive in Jesus day that they were not extensively described in print. People lived with the horror of it through the personal encounters they had. We, however, need to be helped to understand the full horror of the cross. We have made it too antiseptic, too abstract, too removed. Gibson, thus, is perhaps being honest to the event by being more graphic than the restrained accounts. Dr. Philip Cunningham responds: I tend to agree with your sentiments, and would add that the ministry of Jesus - including his preaching, healings, and table fellowship - are also necessary for a fuller understanding of his significance for Christian faith. It is noteworthy that the earliest Christian writer, the Apostle Paul, doesn't focus on crucifixion as why God raised Jesus to transcendent life. In Philippians 2:5-11 Paul praises Christ's self-emptying obedience to the point of experiencing mortality as central to Christian life. In addition, Paul was aware that Jesus' crucifixion was hardly unique for Jews of the time. So in 1 Corinthians 15 he makes it clear that it is the resurrection that lies at the heart of Christian faith, not the intensity of the pain that Jesus suffered.