Passion in fashion
Passion seems to be an appropriate theme for this blog for two reasons. Firstly, I watched the passion of the Christ for the first time this week, Second, because I am reading a book by Kenda Creasey Dean called 'practicing passion.' which is a theological construct of youth ministry based around passion - Christ's, the young people's and our own.
So firstly.. the Passion of the Christ.
I wasn't really sure what to expect from this one, as I heard such mixed reviews from Christians whose opinions and tastes I respect.
In the event, my reaction was mixed too. There were bits in there that I found dubious in the extreme. (Raven and eye incident, anyone? Not biblical, gratuitously violent, and as to what it says about God... don't even get me started!)
Yes, it was VERY violent and bloody - for me that was actually quite a barrier. I'm really squeamish, I hate violent films, and the fact that for most of the film Jesus looked inhuman because of the levels of disfigurement to his face and body made it hard for me to identify with him as a character in the film. I had to call on my imagination of the life of Jesus, the Jesus I know in order to try and make that identification. For me, that was where the Miracle maker has the edge on this film - the start of the Mm reminded you WHY Jesus was such an amazing man, whereas you needed to supply that context for yourself in this film!
However - in spite of this, there was a turning point for me. I think it was the flash back to the last supper. The familiar words of 'this is my body, broken for you,' and 'this is my blood, shed for you,' took on a real significance - one that you KNOW is there, but can so easily be glossed over or not appreciated in the context of all the words we normally use. At this point, I had to acknowlege that yes the film was barbaric - but actually, crucifixion IS! The sanitised pictures and portrayals we see of Jesus with a mere trickle of blood, looking serene and at peace... well, why? Are we saying it didn't really hurt? That because Jesus is God, he could somehow cope with it better? That becoming sin, becoming what was most abhorrent to him was a peaceful experience for Jesus? Do we limit the extent of God's passion expressed for us by limiting the suffering God endured? Do we therefore limit our own passionate response, because we haven't fully taken in what happened that day?
I'm blogged out for now - will bloc on the book next time I'm in!
So firstly.. the Passion of the Christ.
I wasn't really sure what to expect from this one, as I heard such mixed reviews from Christians whose opinions and tastes I respect.
In the event, my reaction was mixed too. There were bits in there that I found dubious in the extreme. (Raven and eye incident, anyone? Not biblical, gratuitously violent, and as to what it says about God... don't even get me started!)
Yes, it was VERY violent and bloody - for me that was actually quite a barrier. I'm really squeamish, I hate violent films, and the fact that for most of the film Jesus looked inhuman because of the levels of disfigurement to his face and body made it hard for me to identify with him as a character in the film. I had to call on my imagination of the life of Jesus, the Jesus I know in order to try and make that identification. For me, that was where the Miracle maker has the edge on this film - the start of the Mm reminded you WHY Jesus was such an amazing man, whereas you needed to supply that context for yourself in this film!
However - in spite of this, there was a turning point for me. I think it was the flash back to the last supper. The familiar words of 'this is my body, broken for you,' and 'this is my blood, shed for you,' took on a real significance - one that you KNOW is there, but can so easily be glossed over or not appreciated in the context of all the words we normally use. At this point, I had to acknowlege that yes the film was barbaric - but actually, crucifixion IS! The sanitised pictures and portrayals we see of Jesus with a mere trickle of blood, looking serene and at peace... well, why? Are we saying it didn't really hurt? That because Jesus is God, he could somehow cope with it better? That becoming sin, becoming what was most abhorrent to him was a peaceful experience for Jesus? Do we limit the extent of God's passion expressed for us by limiting the suffering God endured? Do we therefore limit our own passionate response, because we haven't fully taken in what happened that day?
I'm blogged out for now - will bloc on the book next time I'm in!
posted by Kathryn at 1:08 PM
6 Comments:
Kathryn,
Hey, the raven thing, not so much biblical as it is historical. Believe me when I tell you this, I am NOT a Bible professor or any thing close to that, but before the Passion came out I studied the crucifixion in depth. There are cases where birds of prey and other animals would prey on the people hanging on the crosses. I wish I could remember the reference I found that in but I am an idiot and can't remember what happened yesterday.
Just thought you would like to know.
God bless,
Joe
I just brought a copy of the film so i shall try and watch it soon, i too have heard mixed comments including one person who said they got bored and fell asleep!
Hey! Simo - I'd be interested to know what you make of it.
Joe - I'm not disputing that ravens eat carrion! My query is to WHY that scene is there. There was such a to-do about how the film sticks closely to the biblical narrative - so why include that bit? What was the message or intent in including it? As far as I can make out either it serves no purpose, and is therefore gratutitously violent, or it is trying to say something - if so, what? That God is a giant bully who says, 'you diss my boy, and I'll pluck your eyes out you wretched creature" That's not the God of Christianity!!
Didn't mean that to turn into a rant...I did warn you not to get me started!!
Kathryn,
You are right and I am with you on that point, my God is a God of love. My own opinion is that, I think Mel Gibson did this movie to tell the story. But I also think he did it to make some money. So maybe he thought it needed more. Of course, what Jesus went through should have been enough!
Please forgive me I didn't mean to get you started.
God bless,
Joe
Glad to see your thoughts on it all.
I'm with you on the raven, though for me it was the bizarre white leopard moment and that WEIRD flashback of Jesus inventing the modern table that I thought were ridiculously superfluous to the story and ttally unfounded in the biblical text.
You've inspired me so I'll be "getting passionate" on my blog too.
You said you'll bloC on the book - Freudian slip indeed! I figure you were thinking of coffee!
I thought the film was very good, in a bhorribly gut wrenchingly disurbing sort of way! I saw it at the cinema and couldn't bring myself to eat for 24 hours afterwards.
You have to remember that that film is made from a Catholic viewpoint and for Catholics tradition plays as much importance as the Bible. Hence the addition of the raven and also the making of the relic when Jesus mops his face and leaves a turin shroud kind of inprint.
I actually liked the bit about him making the table, it emphasised his humanity, and we know that he was a carpenter. I agree that the reason for including it was a bit odd, in that it was the creation of another religious relic, but to see Jesus working with his hands - being altogether human, i found really comforting.
Post a Comment
<< Home