Mel Gibson's cinematic masterpiece 'The Passion of the Christ' may well prove to be one of the defining films of the early C21st. It is indicative of societies that have forgotten to think about how to think that the majority of the responses to the piece have been largely sentimentally shallow (whether by those who have loved or have loathed it). This reception, conducted in near hysteria, has not been helped by the suggestions of those involved in its production that the movie's critics have been guilty more of having trouble with the Gospels themselves than with the film as such. Such suggestions, however, fail to show sufficient self-critical sensitivity to the gap between the Gospel and ALL receptions of it.
The differences in the way the film has been received highlights
something of the huge gulf that separates the sensibilities of Christ-
-ians (particularly Western Christians) and non-Christian communit-
-ies (especially certain kinds of Jewish communities). The question
needing to be put is not merely 'is THIS God the God who is worship-
-ed by Christians' but 'is this God WORTHY of being worshipped?' Not only should the cross not be separated from the ethical significance of the theodicy question (what kind of God would allow creatures to suffer horrendous evils?) in general, but perhaps it should be raised and intensified to an uncomfortable extent for Christians who worship the God depicted in Gibson's meditation.
The gulf that has divided the reception of the range of academics (largely negatively critical) and the non-academic Christians (largely positive) is also indicative of some serious problems. It has to be asked just why this difference has been so pronounced. Naming the gulf may well lead to substantial and hopeful reflection on just what the relation between church and academy, heart and mind perhaps, is. My worry, however, is that it will be another instance of churches accusing academics of being impious and out of touch, and of many academics further withdrawing from practical engagement in a territory that has increasingly alienated them. I am convinced that the loss of sustained and rigourous reflection in the churches will be not only to its own detriment - forgetting just what commitment to 'truth' demands, and that is not easy and glib answers to the most difficult and pressing of questions - but also constitute significant loss in the self-understanding of academics. |
