The Dolorous Passion of a Religious Studies Graduate Student

I did it.
I watched The Passion of the Christ.

I wish I could say I had some conclusive "A-ha!" moment where I realized precisely (and concisely) what it is that bothers me about that movie, but even after mulling it over in my mind for a few days I don't completely have it figured out.

Class discussions have been interesting. Wednesday we discussed Mel Gibson's Catholicism and Friday saw us arguing over the presence of anti-semitism in the movie. As much as people try to keep personal opinions out of it, we all show our cards on a regular basis and sometimes I can feel a bit of a flare in tensions (mine included). Monday should be interesting as we discuss why Evangelical Christians like such a Catholic movie so much.

So here are my chief complaints (which I'm sure I will be unable to keep to myself tomorrow)-

1) This movie does not portray what I PERSONALLY feel are the best attributes/facets of the Jesus story, and therefore I don't see how it would serve as a "witnessing tool". Perhaps it was my liberal Protestant upbringing, but I see emphasis on peace, love and caring for others as much more attractive to non-Christians. Instead what the movie brings is guilt, gore and Satan (with a devil baby?).

2) Jesus is Gibson's typical hyper-masculine hero. Takes a beating and stands back up, in a way saying "up yours" to the drunken stupid Roman torturers. I'm really surprised Gibson didn't play Jesus himself. Also, Jesus isn't shown as the sort of political rebel/threat that he was and therefore winds up looking like an innocent lamb being led to the slaughter. The blame is put upon the manipulative Sanhedrin who cajole the impotent Roman officials to do their dirty work. The true political climate of the time period is in no way accurately represented.

And finally, 3) The majority of the movie is based on extra-biblical sources (such as the Catholic Stations of the Cross) and Anne Catherine Emmerich’s “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” She was a 19th century “mystic, stigmatist, visionary, and prophet“ and Gibson didn’t need to write a screenplay for the movie as she had pretty much already done it for him. If you don’t believe me, you can check it out for yourself.

So maybe, just maybe if you said to me "Hey do you want to watch this movie with me? It's a slightly anti-semitic passion play-esque film told from the point of view of Mary based on a vision had by an 19th century stigmatist and it's hard core gory!" I might say yes.

But call it a "powerful witnessing tool" or "the way it really was," and you might have to start calling me "Doubting Thomas."

I don't know if any of that really makes any sense, but who cares because Big Love is about to come on and I have better, juicer things to concentrate on. ;)