'Passion' raises strong questions for theologians

By Mary Kaye Ritz
Advertiser Religion & Ethics Writer

Rabbi Avi Magid, The Very Rev. Ann McElligott and the Rev. Marc R. Alexander at Ward Theatres to see "The Passion of the Christ." Gregory Yamamoto • The Honolulu Advertiser

Rabbi Avi Magid heads the largest Jewish congregation on O'ahu, Temple Emanu-El. The Very Rev. Dr. Ann McElligott, an Episcopal priest, is the dean, or head, of St. Andrew's Cathedral, the seat of the Episcopal diocese for the island. And the Rev. Marc Alexander heads up the Manoa Punahou Catholic Community, with three churches, and also serves as theologian for the Roman Catholic diocese here.

After Monday night's screening of the Mel Gibson movie, which depicts the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, the three clerics met to talk about what "Passion" means in today's religious landscape. They agreed that, if viewers are able to take the graphic nature of the violence, this R-rated movie is worth viewing — mostly for its cultural, rather than religious, significance.

The trio weighed in on a variety of topics, including ...

Q. Impressions of the movie, overall:

Alexander: The movie is amazingly powerful. It wasn't what I expected. It almost bypasses the intellect and goes straight for the heart. It does what it's supposed to do, generates real emotion. I'm surprised at how well done it is.

Q. Was the violence too graphic?

McElligott: The torn-up, bloody body did become a caricature. They could have cut the gore ...

Alexander: ... And made it a PG13. That would have had the same effect.

Magid: I'm overwhelmed by the sheer amount of bloodshed. I'm not sure that's what I wanted to take from the movie.

Alexander: I was definitely struck with the scourging as it went on and on and on. I thought it was excessive. Good cinema should grab the heart and touch the affective dimension. I found myself tearing at several points. (The violence) was distracting, too. And numbing. Avi, was it what you expected?

Magid: No. Well, yes and no. I expected the violence and the bloodshed, but I wasn't prepared for as much.

Q. Is it an effective evangelizing tool?

McElligott: The issue is, what do I understand evangelism to be? It's not something I watch, up there. It's something that happens, person to person. That seed needs to be given a place to be nurtured, to grow. Is this movie one? Probably for some.

Alexander: I would not see this as a tool. The movie may be meaningful for deepening, for someone who's already Christian. My parents are both converts. My dad was Jewish and my mother was Shinto. When I listen to their stories, I have to say, the first thing that attracted them isn't the passion. What really attracts them is when they see love operational. It means going out and helping people, no matter what their faith is. ... If I weren't a Christian, I'm not sure I would find this very hopeful.

Q. Is it anti-Semitic?

McElligott: I don't think anybody comes out well.

Magid: It's difficult to separate out the historicity from the presentation of the movie. Frankly, it's really what I want to avoid. Personally, and I've explained it to my community, I think there are people who will see this movie and take the view of, it's a scholastic, historic and literal presentation. Others may respond that it's the center of their faith narrative. What happens is that people get into a conversation about the movie that will be points of view. I worry that there's no dialogue, there are parallel monologues. That concerns me, because the amount of time that we have spent, especially in the 20th centuries, has been dialogue between faiths. It's going to be pretty easy to fall back onto parallel monologues. That's a mistake. But I really understand why people would do that. The emotional content of the story is so overwhelming. I'm more curious how the Christian community is going to respond to Jews who view this with the historical, scholastic focus — will they understand how Jews feel? And will Jews understand how Christians feel?

Alexander: Don't you think the portrayal showed the dissension? Those who didn't like how the proceedings were taken place (during the temple mob scene) were being removed. It was a balanced presentation, I thought. I was expecting, because I'm kind of sensitive to the anti-Semitism because of my background, but I didn't find the film had any of that. The Romans came off a lot worse.

Magid: I think, to an extent, Gibson tried to give a small amount of dissension a plug. I saw it. But again, the issue is the history and the reality of the history.

McElligott: What bothered me was cinematically, the character of the high priest was juxtaposed consistently with Jesus. ... It definitely set up, visually, that face and character as the side of persecution. The two were shown (as antagonists), more strongly than the gospels. The viciousness came from the Romans, sure, and everyone has a place in the persecution ... but just in the way it was presented, I see why that is why it could be interpreted as potentially villainizing.

Magid: It's not as strong as I expected. Folks in the know will have many serious questions about how Mel Gibson did the portrayal. It was going to be the true representation of the gospel itself. ... I hope when ministers are talking about it with their flocks, they have the courage to say, there were historical issues. ... I don't think rabbis should be focusing on historical and church doctrine. I want my congregants to understand how emotional the passion is for Christians. I'm urging my members to see it as a cultural, American phenomenon. People would be remiss not to see it.

Q. Should filmmakers limit the story to the passion, and use material not found in the Bible?

McElligott: I can't preach the cross without the resurrection any more than I can preach the resurrection without the cross. To go to Good Friday with the vague glimpse of Easter Sunday is like I forgot to go to the last half of the service.

Magid: How do you, as ministers, deal with the extra-canonical literature?

Alexander: The first question, for me, is how do you deal with the compressing of the different perspectives. ...

McElligott: ... You've taken four gospel theologies and made them one.

Alexander: I thought he did a good job.

McElligott: I was surprised at how well-blended it was. From the time (Jesus) leaves Pilate, the walk of the cross — much of that is mythology, not scripture.

Alexander: For cinema, that doesn't bother me. As a minister, I ask, does it help my assembly draw a deeper experience of faith? I think it has the capacity to deepen faith.

McElligott: My issue is, what it reinforces. I'm borrowing this phrase from one of my colleague. It reinforces the old ... sacrificial atonement theory, the "buckets of blood" theology, which is one of many ways you can approach the event. ... That's where I was still hungering. If I just preach blood and gore, do I call people to new life?

Reach Mary Kaye Ritz at mritz@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8035.