Jesus Christ Superstar vs. The Passion of the Chirst: A Contest between Fiction and Reality? Part II

Last time we looked at some of the differences between these two popular dramas. (I'm sorry it's been so long since last time.) In one, Jesus is depicted as a superstar, but something far less than the Savior of Holy Scripture. In the other, we see a very serious attempt to grapple with the real Jesus of Narazeth, and, though you accept it or not, to portray the saving work and suffering (or "passion") of the Son of God. I argued that the latter, The Passion of the Christ, is the more historical of the two--to say the least. It is also my opinion that it is worthy of our pious consideration and commendation. In other words, we should watch it, encourage others to watch it, and commend movies like it that aren't afraid to tell the truth, though they come with a sting.

Should we just assume, however, that everything in this movie is good and right? Of course, we should not assume anything, but base everything on a firm foundation. There are a few things we should be aware of in this movie, which we should not necessarily approve.

The following points are all taken from one of my college professors, Dr. Bryan M. Litfin, in a short essay entitled, A Biblical and Theological Evaluation of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ".

1. There are three motivations behind this film that flow straight from Roman Catholicism (that is, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism). The first is Traditional Catholic Piety. This piety is from late medieval Catholicism, and in it a person meditates on the Cross or the Wounds of Christ. He or she enters into a mystical encounter with the Savior by thinking about Jesus' sufferings and death. By doing this, one is enabled to enter into the narrative itself. We must take note of this, because it is a huge reason why Mel Gibson made this film. Is it wrong? Yes, if we take it too far. Mysticism has had tendencies to muddle people's clear understanding of the gospel, especially if it's all revolving around "me". On the other hand, Evangelicals (especially Baptists) could learn from Catholics here. Meditating on Scripture is our privilege as Christians, and Jesus' "passion" is central to the Bible. Also, we are commanded to think about Jesus' death on a regular basis:
   For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (1 Cor. 11:23-26)

2. Marian Devotion. Personally, I was enthralled by the role of Mary in this film. There are some particularly touching moments, as when Mary reminisces about her son's childhood, or when he tells her, "look mother, I make all things new." But Gibson is motivated by more than just highlighting their familial relationship. Roman Catholic doctrine sees Mary as "the mediatrix of all graces" (grace comes from God through Mary) and "co-redemptrix"(people are saved by Mary as well as Jesus, her son). These doctrines exalt Mary to a place higher than the Bible warrants, and we must be careful to distinguish them. Really, I doubt that most people who watch the movie will get any sort of impression of these doctrines. I just want to point out, with my professor, that there is more than meets the eye in this film, and we would do well to be aware.
3. Sacraments. Though this is a huge issue between Catholicism and Protestantism, it's not so much in this film. Still, just so you're aware, there are a few scenes Gibson gives these things prominence (i.e. depiction of the Last Supper; blood and water spray out on the Roman soldier that pierces Jesus' side--the blood represents Holy Eucharist and water is Baptism).
4. The Resurrection is not a prominent scene in the film, taking up about 30 seconds. This is typical of Catholicism, which puts more emphasis on the cross. The Scriptures, however, devote just as much importance to the ressurrection as to the cross. 1 Corinthians15:14 reads, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." It was essential that Jesus die on the cross so that sinners would be saved, but if not for the resurrection, what hope is there that His "passion" accomplished any saving work? The resurrection is what gives us the hope of our own resurrection after we die on earth. Further, if Jesus had not been raised, all that He taught and all that we believe is in vain. From watching The Passion of the Chirst, I don't think this truth comes across, and we are in danger of underemphasizing our reason for believing and our hope of life. I think we ought to find this a serious drawback of the film.

Do these things wreck the movie? By no means. Should we, however, take care in that with which we fill our eyes? By all means.