As Orthodox readers of my blog will be well aware, there is a current controversy over Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Some Orthodox, and indeed, some prominent well-respected priests and writers, are saying of the movie that it is not Orthodox in its theology of the Atonement. The Orthodox, the argument goes, do not focus on the Crucifixion, but on the Resurrection. Orthodox do not believe in an Anselmian conception of atonement--that is, that God has to take his pound of flesh from Christ's bodily sufferings, as it were--and therefore all the blood and gore are not only unnecessary, but are potentially conducive to (if not actually) an heretical notion of the Atonement. One writer has opined that given what seems to be the actual dearth of verses in the Gospels on the actual physical sufferings of Jesus, that the Orthodox cannot really endorse Gibson's film, though they can perhaps admire his intent, and the motivation from whence the film came.
But Jim Kushiner, himself Orthodox, and executive editor of Touchstone magazine, has written a piece which shows that, if one pays attention to Orthodox liturgy, there is much that Orthodox themselves can affirm in Gibson's movie:
"The film misses this point," he wrote. "In Orthodox Christianity, we are asked to identify with his victory, not with his suffering alone." So wrote a Greek Orthodox priest of the Chicago Archdiocese about The Passion.
There has been a great deal said about the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity in commentary about The Passion. Indeed, it seems that the film has perhaps served as an excuse to point out and emphasize the differences. But I have yet to have read anything about the actual content of the film itself that forces one to read it as preaching a particularly “Western” view of the passion. It is unfair to read more into the film than is actually there.
The film doesn’t even address the issue of whether it's the Resurrection that saves us or the Cross or both or the Sufferings and the Death and the Resurrection. Hence, the critique above —aimed at the film-- about Orthodox Christians not identifying with the sufferings alone but with the victory is off the mark.
The film is not the whole story. The film is called The Passion for a reason: it’s about The Sufferings, which is what passion means. It’s not about the Resurrection. It’s not about the Virgin Birth. It’s not about the miracles, the Sermon on the Mount, or the Transfiguration. Indeed, Gibson could surely make another 2-hour (or longer!) film on the Resurrection. But he made “The Passion.”
Further, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I have to say that I am surprised at some of the claims being made about what Orthodox Christians don’t think about. We do think about our Lord's sufferings, and I have done so precisely because of the hymns of the Orthodox worship. Perhaps others don't, but I think that is a grave mistake.
In order to give a fuller picture, here are several liturgical texts from our various church services for just the first week of Lent (there are many similar texts from the same section of the liturgical book not included here; also, there are other texts from Holy Week, the Feast of the Holy Cross, and the regular weekly cycle that I am not even considering here):
On the saving nature of the sufferings [Passion] of Christ: “Through Thy Passion, loving Lord, Thou hast given to all men freedom from the passions, putting to death the passions of my flesh by Thy Cross. Count me worthy, then, to see Thy divine Passion:…”
“Thou has put to death the passion of my flesh by Thy divine Cross, and by Thy Passion Thou hast given all men freedom from the passions. Count me worthy also, Lord, to see Thy holy Resurrection, that I may receive Thy great and abundant mercy.”
“O ye faithful, let us glorify and sing the praises of our Savior and Redeemer, who accepted Crucifixion with His own foreknowledge and consent. He has nailed the sins of mortal men upon His Cross, delivering us from error and granting us the Kingdom.”
On the specific sufferings of Christ: “Knowing that Thy power is infinite and Thy Crucifixion voluntary, the hosts of angels were amazed. How wast Thou, upon whom none may look, scourged in the flesh, in Thy desire to redeem man from corruption? Therefore we cry unto Thee as Giver of Life: Glory to Thy Kingdom, O Christ.”
“Bidding farewell to the world and all that is in it, let us now be crucified with Christ; let us endure outrage, mockery and other sufferings, that we may be glorified with Him.”
“Crowned with thorns, O Christ, and clothed in a scarlet robe, Thou hast shown with glory and surpassed in beauty all the sons of men.”
“Thou hast drunk gall and vinegar, and from Thy divine side Thou pourest out a double stream of life and incorruption, unto those who praise and glorify Thee in faith forever.”
On the Blood: “Thou art a deep well, O Master: make springs gush forth for me from Thy pure veins, that like the woman of Samaria I drink and thirst no more; for from Thee flow the streams of life.”
Hateful thoughts have covered my soul as leprosy: cleanse it, Word of God, with the sprinkling of Thy blood, O Christ, who for my sake hast suffered shameful Crucifixion, make me a partaker in Thy glory.”
“I am bowed down to the earth, O Christ, by the burden of my sinful acts, and in dark discouragement I cry to Thee who lovest man: By Thy precious blood heal the incurable wounds of my soul, that I may sing the praises of Thy Godhead.”
“Thou hast redeemed us from the curse of the law by Thy precious Blood; nailed to the Cross and pierced by the spear, Thou hast poured forth immortality upon mankind. O our Savior, glory by to Thee.”
Remember how the disciples, just before the Last Supper, were disputing with one another who was the greatest? It is ironic that Christians would debate our Lord’s very Passion in a way to highlight (exaggerate, I think) our differences. We really are bad, aren't we? I can only cite Isaiah for all Christians: “By his stripes we were healed.”
As is so often the case, the more one reflects on a matter, the clearer the issues become.
And it's clear to me: I need to see "The Passion."
Posted by Clifton at March 1, 2004 05:45 AM | TrackBackClifton, I think this coin has two sides. While I'm not condemning anyone who does want to see the film, or had some significant experience while viewing it (which some have), Terry Mattingly says some things I think worthy of consideration as well.
Posted by: Chrysostomos at March 2, 2004 12:20 AMChrysostomos:
Mattingly makes some good and important points. Jim Kushiner (and my entry) was addressing a particular point (or set of points) which themselves are very much missing the point.
But Mattingly raises some extremely worth points in his article. And it's these I'd like to see discussed.
In fact, I've noticed one thing about myself with regard to this movie. So long as the movie was criticized and panned--in ways that had nothing to do with the reality of the film--I wanted to see the movie. But now that the movie has started to achieve something like pop or cult status--in its commercial success--the desire to see it has dampened somewhat.
I'll still most definitely go see it. But now I wonder if its success is more about the spectacle and less about the film itself.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at March 2, 2004 06:09 AMI started to get wordy, so I just posted a reply here.
Posted by: Chrysostomos at March 2, 2004 11:10 AM