I forgot to mention that theologically, I really appreciated the way that Gibson emphasizes the meaning of the Eucharist in relationship to the Cross, as well as the place of Mary. There is something profound there, and very good.<\/p>\n
When I left the film, I felt disjointed, somehow. There was something missing in it, and in the middle of the night I realized what it was.<\/p>\n
There are scores of ways to view, ponder and experience Jesus’ Passion. We were in a bookstore on Saturday, and Michael told me he’d run across a book that outlined fifty different theologies of the Cross and atonement that have been expressed in Christianity over the past 2000 years. What this film expresses, beginning with its opening title card from Isaiah, expresses the fundamental truth and mystery: because of his stripes, we are healed. The world is reconciled and sins are forgiven.<\/p>\n
But as much as the Gospels – especially Matthew – are about this, they are also about something else in relation to the Passion of Jesus. They are about discipleship.<\/p>\n
In other words, the Passion narratives are not just about Jesus, in solitude. They are also about us in relationship to God through Jesus, as the entire Gospels have been. In the Passion narratives, it all comes together, beginning at the Last Supper, through the Garden, through Peter’s denial, through the apostles’ flight, through the faithful presence of Jesus’ mother, the other Mary’s and John – their presence at the Cross and the burial, and then their presence as witnesses to the Risen Christ.<\/p>\n
In a way these elements were present, and were scattered through the film. Since I’m not a film director or even a person who knows anything about film structure, I can’t tell you how those threads could have been brought together to deepen theme of faithful discipleship, which is so important in the Gospels. I can’t do it, as well, because that wasn’t part of what Gibson was trying to accomplish here, and it’s his movie. <\/p>\n
But in a way, the final scene of the resurrection highlights this absence more than anything else. I kind of liked it. I liked its simplicity and brevity. But on the other hand – the resurrection scene was probably the most non-Biblical aspect of the film, wasn’t it? For the gospels don’t describe what happened in the tomb. They describe what Mary Magadalene and then the other apostles saw when they encoutered that tomb and that Risen Jesus. Jesus’ resurrection isn’t just about himself, as that final scene implies. It’s about his presence among his disciples, the life he shares with them now and through eternity and what this thing we call Church is all about and what it’s for.<\/p>\n
No, that wasn’t Gibson’s purpose, and as I said, I liked that resurrection scene, in the context of this film. But it underlines an aspect of the theology behind this film that threatens to sidetrack us from contemplating the depth and breadth of the meaning of Jesus’ passion and resurrection, which starts with the innocent victim rising in triumph, but does not end there.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I forgot to mention that theologically, I really appreciated the way that Gibson emphasizes the meaning of the Eucharist in relationship to the Cross, as well as the place of Mary. There is something profound there, and very good. When I left the film, I felt disjointed, somehow. There was something missing in it, and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":180,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n