From: Jurgens (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Wed Jan 02 2002 - 00:48:09 MST
[Blunderov]
Thought provoking piece from a former Anglican priest
Best Regards
<q>
Jesus is crucified daily by people who miss the point
Like many, I am now thoroughly sick and tired of reading articles about
this wretched film and listening to endless talk shows on the radio and
even television. It seems to me as though facist religion of all shapes
and hues has finally found common ground. And no, wild horses wouldn't
drag me to see it.
Firstly, I understand it is in Latin and Aramaic. I battle with Swedish
subtitles, so why should I inflict Aramaic on myself? Secondly, I
understand it is unwarrantably gory - well, there is my second reason to
stay away. And, thirdly, from what everyone is saying, it seems to be
right-wing charismatics in bed with right-wing Catholics, all fighting
each other to book whole cinemas and have what they call a "spiritual
experience". A very good third and final reason not to go.
As it is, I hate religious films. For some reason, I was persuaded many
years ago to go and see Franco Zeferreli's Jesus of Nazareth. It was too
ghastly for words. In this one, Jesus had something like blue flames
shooting from his hands everytime he healed someone or did some other
miracle. It was as literal as anything you can imagine. It was boring to
the point of complete distraction. I came out of the movie vowing never
to punish myself with anything remotely like it again.
Now as I understand it, one of the contentious points of this movie is
that it gives the impression that the Jews killed Christ and this is
considered by some people to be a retrograde step. Well, yes, I would
wholeheartedly agree. It would indeed be a retrograde step. It would be
equally retrograde to say that the Romans killed Christ and, therefore,
we should hate all Italians. It is true that for expedient, clearly
political reasons, the early Church, faced as it was with persecution
under the Roman state, bent over backwards to assure the rulers that no
hint of blame was being placed on them by the emerging church. No, no!
The early Church (in which the Gospels were written from about AD 47
onwards) argued that Pilate, the Roman governor, was no more than a weak
- not culpable - character. After all, according to the Gospel of John,
Pilate found no crime in him. According to Luke, neither Pilate nor
Herod (the Bantustan ruler) found him guilty of anything. But the Jews!
Ah, the Jews. Not only had they rejected their own Messiah but they
were, in fact, the real Christ killers. Matthew has the crowd howl "His
blood be upon us and upon our children". The Roman state is thereby
exonerated of the death of Jesus and the Church is safe for a time.
The Church was protecting itself. It had horrifying consequences down
the ages but it was a politically expedient decision. Undoubtedly it was
an understandable decision. But, for goodness sake, let us not pretend
that the words recorded in the various Gospels were the actual words of
the crowds or the actual words of Pilate or the actual words of anyone
at all. There were no tape recorders. There was no CNN or BBC. The
Gospels were written at the earliest about 40 years after the event.
They were, therefore, highly coloured by the context of the time in
which the writing was taking place.
But more than that, surely even the most basic theology will lead us to
the view that it was neither the Romans nor the Jews who were
responsible for the death of Jesus. It was a consequence of evil, or
sin, or whatever you choose to call it. But, even more than that, what
if Pilate was strong and the Jews happened to be taking a break from
being an angry and persuasive rabble for the day, and Jesus was released
and lived to die in comfort in his bed? The evangelicals wouldn't want
that, surely? No, there has got to be a dead Christ for there to be
salvation. So really, perhaps if the Jews did it, we should all be
thanking them profusely!
This is where such nonsense theology leads in the end. Because the
essence of the whole Gospel is that Christ gets crucified daily and very
often it is the Evangelical or the Catholic who is happy to call for his
death.
Why is it, I wonder, that one can bet on the fact that the selfsame
people who are booking cinemas out for themselves to see this movie are
the same people who want the return of the death penalty. Why is it that
the same people, probably, couldn't give a damn about anything other
than their closed worlds of narrow-minded religion and pitiless
judgements? Just a hunch. But I would be prepared to put a lot of money
down on that position.
Blood and gore have always been a part of Christianity. Faber, one of
the great Tractarian hymn writers, without so much as a quiver of
apprehension, wrote hymns about bathing in the fountain of the saviour's
blood. The difference between the Tractarians, however, and the latter
day crowds rushing to see Mel Gibson's film about blood, is in the
quality of their social conscience and social action. In no interview
that I have heard of people coming out of the Mel Gibson film did I hear
a person say, "That movie has made me look again at the nature of evil
and, because of that, I am constrained to redouble my efforts to do good
in the world, to put an end to suffering, to seek justice and peace."
No, what have I heard? I have heard that this is the "true" depiction of
Jesus. And of course the Jews were to blame. And (in some way I have yet
to understand) we must all become Christians because God loves us all so
much.
If all God wanted was a world full of Christians, one has to admit, with
all due respect, this this was a pretty odd way of achieving that
objective.
And if some of that plan rests on Mel Gibson making a gory film in Latin
and Aramaic about Jesus, then, frankly, I think I despair.
But maybe, just maybe, there is a strong similarity between the people
rushing to see this film and the people strapping bombs to themselves
and blowing themselves up along with other people. Maybe fundamentalism
is one of the real evils of our time and maybe Jesus is crucified afresh
every time they open their mouths or win a convert.
Michael Worsnip is a former Anglican priest and the current programme
manager for the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site, run by the
Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment and Land
Affairs.
Publish Date: 6 April 2004
</q>
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 07 2004 - 02:10:48 MDT