Comments on: Stonehenge and the English on the Passion http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/ Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:07:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: little more than a placeholder http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-471 little more than a placeholder Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:11:05 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-471 <strong>That passion</strong> Returning from seeing The Passion with Matt and Fraser last Sunday I attempted to shape some words to describe the... That passion

Returning from seeing The Passion with Matt and Fraser last Sunday I attempted to shape some words to describe the…

]]> By: d-rod http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-470 d-rod Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:25:36 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-470 I'm sure the "heretics" burned alive in the middle ages were comforted by the nuanced position that their tormenters had accepted Christ into their hearts and what His sacrifice "meant" to them. I’m sure the “heretics” burned alive in the middle ages were comforted by the nuanced position that their tormenters had accepted Christ into their hearts and what His sacrifice “meant” to them.

]]> By: Hugo http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-469 Hugo Fri, 02 Apr 2004 14:06:22 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-469 I didn't see the Arianism, Nate, (heck, I flirt with Docetism myself, so I am alert to Arius' heresy, or so I think), but I did like what you said about the false dichotomy we have set up: "I'm just tired of the oppositional, dialectical nature of much of the commentary (in both regular and religious fora) on the film. It's not devout v. secular, thinking v. feeling, or any other such sets of "versus" statements. It's quite possible to be a devout, feeling Christian and still get nothing from this film. But I am tired, and perhaps others are too, of being pigeon-holed about the movie either into an "intellectual" category or a "Christian" category based on the fact that I identify with both of these groups and saw the film. My response is more complex and nuanced than that." Nicely put. Thanks. I didn’t see the Arianism, Nate, (heck, I flirt with Docetism myself, so I am alert to Arius’ heresy, or so I think), but I did like what you said about the false dichotomy we have set up:

“I’m just tired of the oppositional, dialectical nature of much of the commentary (in both regular and religious fora) on the film. It’s not devout v. secular, thinking v. feeling, or any other such sets of “versus” statements. It’s quite possible to be a devout, feeling Christian and still get nothing from this film. But I am tired, and perhaps others are too, of being pigeon-holed about the movie either into an “intellectual” category or a “Christian” category based on the fact that I identify with both of these groups and saw the film. My response is more complex and nuanced than that.”

Nicely put. Thanks.

]]> By: Nate http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-468 Nate Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:54:06 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-468 Well, I don't want to get into the so-called "Mariolatry", but one thing that I've been glad of in my move closer to Catholicism has been gaining a larger understanding of how we render dylia and hyperdylia to the saints and Mary, respectively. Several councils of the unified church noted that Mary was due special honor and veneration (but not worship) as a marker of her status as the God-Bearer (Theotokos). More modern Roman Catholicism may have gone much farther than hyperdylia, but I think that the evangelical Protestantism I grew up in didn't give Mary enough veneration. So it's not that part of the film that bothered me. I guess I found "Last Temptation" more compelling, at least in the sense that Jesus' humanity (the one of his two natures that I think is more often forgotten, at least among many of the film's partisans) is made more clear than in PotC. LT is by no means perfect, but I think it better (also, it never purports to be based upon the Gospels, but on Kazantzakis's book). The book, I might note, is far better than either movie. If you want to meditate upon Christ's life and passion and temptations, go read it. Moreover, I think that the Gibson film presents a fairly materialist conception of Christ, one neither human nor divine, but really just a body of fleshy matter to be destroyed. For me, that's a problem, because a heretical theology seems to undergird it (a sort of Arianism, it seems). And like James (above), the film seems to me a study in an offshoot Roman Catholic fundamentalism. I learn and experience more about the maker of the film than the Maker Himself. It's not that I deny people's reaction to the film, that it may have moved them powerfully and such. I'm just tired of the oppositional, dialectical nature of much of the commentary (in both regular and religious fora) on the film. It's not devout v. secular, thinking v. feeling, or any other such sets of "versus" statements. It's quite possible to be a devout, feeling Christian and still get nothing from this film. But I am tired, and perhaps others are too, of being pigeon-holed about the movie either into an "intellectual" category or a "Christian" category based on the fact that I identify with both of these groups and saw the film. My response is more complex and nuanced than that. And I'd like to think that others have the same concerns. Well, I don’t want to get into the so-called “Mariolatry”, but one thing that I’ve been glad of in my move closer to Catholicism has been gaining a larger understanding of how we render dylia and hyperdylia to the saints and Mary, respectively. Several councils of the unified church noted that Mary was due special honor and veneration (but not worship) as a marker of her status as the God-Bearer (Theotokos). More modern Roman Catholicism may have gone much farther than hyperdylia, but I think that the evangelical Protestantism I grew up in didn’t give Mary enough veneration. So it’s not that part of the film that bothered me.

I guess I found “Last Temptation” more compelling, at least in the sense that Jesus’ humanity (the one of his two natures that I think is more often forgotten, at least among many of the film’s partisans) is made more clear than in PotC. LT is by no means perfect, but I think it better (also, it never purports to be based upon the Gospels, but on Kazantzakis’s book). The book, I might note, is far better than either movie. If you want to meditate upon Christ’s life and passion and temptations, go read it.

Moreover, I think that the Gibson film presents a fairly materialist conception of Christ, one neither human nor divine, but really just a body of fleshy matter to be destroyed. For me, that’s a problem, because a heretical theology seems to undergird it (a sort of Arianism, it seems). And like James (above), the film seems to me a study in an offshoot Roman Catholic fundamentalism. I learn and experience more about the maker of the film than the Maker Himself.

It’s not that I deny people’s reaction to the film, that it may have moved them powerfully and such. I’m just tired of the oppositional, dialectical nature of much of the commentary (in both regular and religious fora) on the film. It’s not devout v. secular, thinking v. feeling, or any other such sets of “versus” statements. It’s quite possible to be a devout, feeling Christian and still get nothing from this film. But I am tired, and perhaps others are too, of being pigeon-holed about the movie either into an “intellectual” category or a “Christian” category based on the fact that I identify with both of these groups and saw the film. My response is more complex and nuanced than that. And I’d like to think that others have the same concerns.

]]> By: Nate http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-467 Nate Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:50:05 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-467 Well, I don't want to get into the so-called "Mariolatry", but one thing that I've been glad of in my move closer to Catholicism has been gaining a larger understanding of how we render dylia and hyperdylia to the saints and Mary, respectively. Several councils of the unified church noted that Mary was due special honor and veneration (but not worship) as a marker of her status as the God-Bearer (Theotokos). More modern Roman Catholicism may have gone much farther than hyperdylia, but I think that the evangelical Protestantism I grew up in didn't give Mary enough veneration. So it's not that part of the film that bothered me. I guess I found "Last Temptation" more compelling, at least in the sense that Jesus' humanity (the one of his two natures that I think is more often forgotten, at least among many of the film's partisans) is made more clear than in PotC. LT is by no means perfect, but I think it better (also, it never purports to be based upon the Gospels, but on Kazantzakis's book). The book, I might note, is far better than either movie. If you want to meditate upon Christ's life and passion and temptations, go read it. Moreover, I think that the Gibson film presents a fairly materialist conception of Christ, one neither human nor divine, but really just a body of fleshy matter to be destroyed. For me, that's a problem, because a heretical theology seems to undergird it (a sort of Arianism, it seems). And like James (above), the film seems to me a study in an offshoot Roman Catholic fundamentalism. I learn and experience more about the maker of the film than the Maker Himself. It's not that I deny people's reaction to the film, that it may have moved them powerfully and such. I'm just tired of the oppositional, dialectical nature of much of the commentary (in both regular and religious fora) on the film. It's not devout v. secular, thinking v. feeling, or any other such sets of "versus" statements. It's quite possible to be a devout, feeling Christian and still get nothing from this film. But I am tired, and perhaps others are too, of being pigeon-holed about the movie either into an "intellectual" category or a "Christian" category based on the fact that I identify with both of these groups and saw the film. My response is more complex and nuanced than that. And I'd like to think that others have the same concerns. Well, I don’t want to get into the so-called “Mariolatry”, but one thing that I’ve been glad of in my move closer to Catholicism has been gaining a larger understanding of how we render dylia and hyperdylia to the saints and Mary, respectively. Several councils of the unified church noted that Mary was due special honor and veneration (but not worship) as a marker of her status as the God-Bearer (Theotokos). More modern Roman Catholicism may have gone much farther than hyperdylia, but I think that the evangelical Protestantism I grew up in didn’t give Mary enough veneration. So it’s not that part of the film that bothered me.

I guess I found “Last Temptation” more compelling, at least in the sense that Jesus’ humanity (the one of his two natures that I think is more often forgotten, at least among many of the film’s partisans) is made more clear than in PotC. LT is by no means perfect, but I think it better (also, it never purports to be based upon the Gospels, but on Kazantzakis’s book). The book, I might note, is far better than either movie. If you want to meditate upon Christ’s life and passion and temptations, go read it.

Moreover, I think that the Gibson film presents a fairly materialist conception of Christ, one neither human nor divine, but really just a body of fleshy matter to be destroyed. For me, that’s a problem, because a heretical theology seems to undergird it (a sort of Arianism, it seems). And like James (above), the film seems to me a study in an offshoot Roman Catholic fundamentalism. I learn and experience more about the maker of the film than the Maker Himself.

It’s not that I deny people’s reaction to the film, that it may have moved them powerfully and such. I’m just tired of the oppositional, dialectical nature of much of the commentary (in both regular and religious fora) on the film. It’s not devout v. secular, thinking v. feeling, or any other such sets of “versus” statements. It’s quite possible to be a devout, feeling Christian and still get nothing from this film. But I am tired, and perhaps others are too, of being pigeon-holed about the movie either into an “intellectual” category or a “Christian” category based on the fact that I identify with both of these groups and saw the film. My response is more complex and nuanced than that. And I’d like to think that others have the same concerns.

]]> By: The Angry Clam http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-466 The Angry Clam Fri, 02 Apr 2004 02:02:13 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-466 I like the part where they complain that there's not enough of Jesus the Teacher in the movie. It is called "The Passion of the Christ." It's not intended as a general rendition of the Gospels or as a Jesus biopic. For the last 12 hours or so, pretty much all Jesus did was allow a lot of bad things to happen to him. I like the part where they complain that there’s not enough of Jesus the Teacher in the movie.

It is called “The Passion of the Christ.” It’s not intended as a general rendition of the Gospels or as a Jesus biopic.

For the last 12 hours or so, pretty much all Jesus did was allow a lot of bad things to happen to him.

]]> By: Hugo http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-465 Hugo Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:26:53 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-465 Well, I think Protestants might have had more trouble with the Mary imagery a few years ago... but for many Protestants (including self), the vision of Mary was welcome. It did not cross the line into Marian idolatry, as far as I could tell -- and yet it captured her biblically central role beautifully. Of course it was one man's vision; and as such is of course only a human (and flawed) attempt to capture the truth of the Gospel -- but compared to the "Last Temptation" or "The Jesus Movie", it got to a visceral truth about what it meant for Christ to die for us. I think my liberal cred is pretty good -- and while I did not love the movie uncritically (the raven and the eyeball bit was unnecessary, Jesus inventing furniture was a silly but a charming device), I wept with gratitude throughout. Well, I think Protestants might have had more trouble with the Mary imagery a few years ago… but for many Protestants (including self), the vision of Mary was welcome. It did not cross the line into Marian idolatry, as far as I could tell — and yet it captured her biblically central role beautifully.

Of course it was one man’s vision; and as such is of course only a human (and flawed) attempt to capture the truth of the Gospel — but compared to the “Last Temptation” or “The Jesus Movie”, it got to a visceral truth about what it meant for Christ to die for us.

I think my liberal cred is pretty good — and while I did not love the movie uncritically (the raven and the eyeball bit was unnecessary, Jesus inventing furniture was a silly but a charming device), I wept with gratitude throughout.

]]> By: Nate http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-464 Nate Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:48:49 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-464 I'm a Christian, of the liberal variety, and I've written a bit on the gospel according to Mel. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/natep/2004/03/07#a290 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/natep/2004/03/02#a277 I have a fairly orthodox theology, and I found Gibson's movie a sham cartoon that's more Terminator than transformation. It's not just devout versus secular. Gibson's film is not theologically uncontroversial (or even theologically Protestant, to be honest), and he's being dishonest in presenting it as more even-handed than it is. One French review (in Le Monde, I think) made an excellent point. It is *just a movie*, not a sacred text. And as a movie, it bears the mark of a creator who has made choices about what and what not to show and say. I’m a Christian, of the liberal variety, and I’ve written a bit on the gospel according to Mel.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/natep/2004/03/07#a290
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/natep/2004/03/02#a277

I have a fairly orthodox theology, and I found Gibson’s movie a sham cartoon that’s more Terminator than transformation. It’s not just devout versus secular. Gibson’s film is not theologically uncontroversial (or even theologically Protestant, to be honest), and he’s being dishonest in presenting it as more even-handed than it is.

One French review (in Le Monde, I think) made an excellent point. It is *just a movie*, not a sacred text. And as a movie, it bears the mark of a creator who has made choices about what and what not to show and say.

]]> By: John http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-463 John Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:16:34 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-463 Here, (NZ) which is a much more secular country than the UK, and much more cynical and hard on sentimentality, "The Passion" has been very popular. The critics have been universally hostile, the devout (particularly the Evangelical, conservative Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox devout) almost universally positive. We'll see. Here, (NZ) which is a much more secular country than the UK, and much more cynical and hard on sentimentality, “The Passion” has been very popular. The critics have been universally hostile, the devout (particularly the Evangelical, conservative Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox devout) almost universally positive. We’ll see.

]]> By: James http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-462 James Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:28:10 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2004/03/30/stonehenge-and-the-english-on-the-passion/#comment-462 I don't think I'd go so far as to say that the film has nothing to say or that the Jews are portrayed as master criminals, but as someone who Landesman might describe as devout I found watching the film a thoroughly distasteful experience. Gibson's blood-thirst seemed time and again to step beyond the realms of historical re-enactment and implied a fundamentalist adherence to a particular reading of Isaiah 53. And sometimes beyond that again (the thief's eye being pecked out?!?). The camera work often seemed to scream 'feel this', the usual result of which technique from me is an obstinate 'no'. I suspect that a typically British cynicism will have some impact on responses to this film, and that may go some way towards explaining the disparity between reviews on either side of the atlantic. But for me, I'm saddened to say I find it difficult to find the film interesting in any way other than as a study in fundamentalism. I don’t think I’d go so far as to say that the film has nothing to say or that the Jews are portrayed as master criminals, but as someone who Landesman might describe as devout I found watching the film a thoroughly distasteful experience.

Gibson’s blood-thirst seemed time and again to step beyond the realms of historical re-enactment and implied a fundamentalist adherence to a particular reading of Isaiah 53. And sometimes beyond that again (the thief’s eye being pecked out?!?). The camera work often seemed to scream ‘feel this’, the usual result of which technique from me is an obstinate ‘no’.

I suspect that a typically British cynicism will have some impact on responses to this film, and that may go some way towards explaining the disparity between reviews on either side of the atlantic. But for me, I’m saddened to say I find it difficult to find the film interesting in any way other than as a study in fundamentalism.

]]>