Evangelical experts praise Gibson’s handling of ‘The Passion’

As a Christian biology professor, Cahleen Shrier’s interest in the crucifixion of Christ runs more than skin deep. It was a gruesome ritual that partnered punishment with torture.

“It wasn’t designed to be cool,” she said. “That’s what it was.”

Shrier’s views are getting plenty of play these days as the public discussion over Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” keeps up with the frenetic pace of ticket sales. Shrier, an associate professor for the department of biology and chemistry at Azusa Pacific University, has—with the help of Tally Flint, editor of the Office of University Marketing and Creative Media—developed an essay called the Science of the Crucifixion. Interspersed with references from the gospels, Shrier paints a dramatic picture of the last days of Christ.

“I feel this is where Protestants are out of balance because we don’t (always) recognize that Christ suffered,” she said. “He’s fully human, he’s going to suffer.”

Shrier credits Flint with converting her scientific notes into a discernable form several years ago. Usually used with the backdrop of Easter, Shrier has also given talks on the topic in her classroom, to other universities and churches. With Easter approaching and interest in the film remaining high, the university recently posted the writing on its Web site. It has also appeared in the campus magazine APU Life.

As of March 28, “The Passion of the Christ” had sold $315 million in tickets in the United States, according to boxofficeguru.com. The showing placed it 13th on the all-time blockbuster list. It was the top movie grossing film in the country for three straight weeks. Experts are predicting the movie will experience another boost Easter week, elevating it to one of the top 10 movies of all times.

Central to the public debate has been Gibson’s handling of the role Jews played in the entire episode. Among evangelicals, though, that question has already been solved. Each of us lays claim to the deed. Still, many have stepped forward to try to defuse the tension.

“I’m saddened by the debate, but I think there is also purpose in the debate,” Shrier said.

Mark Strauss, a New Testament professor at Bethel Seminary in San Diego, said he paid particular attention to the anti-Semitic charges because of a meeting he had scheduled the following day with officials at the Anti-Defamation League. In his opinion, he did not believe the movie carried any outward hostilities toward Jews.

“It’s opened a dialog with the Jewish community that could bear fruit someday in the future,” Strauss said.

The Catholic perspective
More pressing among evangelicals is how Gibson, a Roman Catholic, presented the gospel accounts of the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life. Although the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants have divided believers for centuries, many evangelicals are applauding Gibson for his efforts.

“There’s a lot of extra-biblical things, but I didn’t see anything that was unbiblical,” Strauss said

One flaw that’s been repeatedly cited is a scene that portrays Mary Magdalene as the adulterous woman.

“It was surely one of the most powerful scenes in the movie,” Strauss said.

There were other scenes were Gibson interpreted gaps in the story, using traditional Roman Catholic writings.

“It represents accurately the nature of Jesus’ ministry,” he said. “To me, that’s the important thing (to emphasize), what’s the nature of Jesus? Who was He?”

If Strauss could change one aspect of the film, he said he would add more context in explaining the whys.

“Why did the high priest hate Jesus so much? Why was he set on destroying Jesus?” the professor said. “I wish that there was some way to understand the dynamics of what’s going on. Of course, that’s why I’m a New Testament professor. People need to know more than the snippets of what’s going on.”

At the same time, Strauss said he recognizes that there’s an enormous amount of theology and history tucked into the four Gospel accounts.

“One of the reasons why it (the movie) touches us so deeply, so personally, is because it’s so narrow,” he said.

Strauss agreed with Shrier saying Protestants can take a few lessons from Catholics when it comes to understanding the crucifixion. Sometimes, he said, evangelicals gloss over the sacrifice to get to the joy of the final chapter.

“They (Catholics) certainly emphasize, experientially, the suffering of Christ,” he said. “I say that’s something we can learn from them.”

In some circles, Gibson has been taken to task for placing too much attention on Mary. Strauss said he believes Gibson did a good job of using Mary to help depict the humanness of Christ.

“Every movie is going to take a perspective, even the gospels take a perspective,” Strauss said, adding that Luke focuses on the nativity story from the view of Mary, Elizabeth and Anna, while in Matthew, the emphasis is on Joseph and his dream.

Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, a New Testament professor at Denver Seminary, addressed similar issues in a review he wrote for the campus Web site. In it, Blomberg said he believes the movie’s emphasis on suffering reflects Gibson’s worldview.

“It is easy to wonder if one of the emphases is an unhealthy and perhaps even inappropriate overemphasis on the suffering,” Blomberg wrote, also noting several historical inaccuracies. “Even one of today’s Olympic body-builder could hardly have lived to make it to the site of the crucifixion, given what Gibson’s Christ has to endure.

“On the other hand, it is probably fair to say that contemporary American culture, perhaps more than any other culture in the history of the world, does not adequately appreciate the immensity of suffering that most of humanity has experienced throughout time.”

At the same time, Blomberg said that if viewers can understand the threat of evil that faces every human heart, then Gibson’s film will have been worthwhile.

“But of course, if we are so hopelessly sinful, then we need a savior, and there is no other religion or ideology in the history of humanity that has ever claimed to worship a person who was both human and divine and who died not merely a martyr’s death, but one that paid the rpice that all of us deserve to pay for our sins,” the Denver professor wrote.

“There is no other ‘ism’ which claims that such a founder rose from the dead in bodily form, objectively appearing to hundreds of people and vindicating the claims of his life, including those about the significance of His death.”

Biologist Shrier, who still has not seen the movie because of family commitments, said that those issues—the issues based in the spiritual aspect of the crucifixion—are what touches her the deepest.

“The science of it may interest me because of how the body works, but that doesn’t supersede the bottom line of why it was done,” the biologist said. “Hopefully it will lead to an understanding of what God’s done for us.”

To read Blomberg’s review, log on to denverseminary.edu/dialogue
To read Shrier and Flint’s essay, log on to apu.edu.

Published, April 2004

Christian Examiner™, P.O. Box 2606 El Cajon, CA 92021 • 619-668-5100 • Fax 619-668-1115
Email: info@christianexaminer.com • Web site: www.christianexaminer.com