(hyperlinks added by Webmaster)
I am especially delighted that our friends from Old South United Methodist Church in Reading are visiting with us tonight. I am reminded of my first rabbinic experience, at Temple Israel in Minneapolis, a metropolitan area in which Jews make up about 2 % of the population. While that may sound small to those of us in the Northeast, allow me to remind us all that according to the best figures , that number is slightly higher than the national figure of about 2%. That Temple received visits from one or more church groups almost every week. One member of the congregation served as our primary docent, meeting with each group before Shabbat services, orienting them to the synagogue building and to the worship they were about to experience. There were occasionally reports of the more unusual comments and questions that came out during those sessions. The one I remember best probably should not have shocked me as much as it did, but in 1983, someone from one of those groups, when being shown the small Bimah area in the front of the chapel asked "Is that where you offer the sacrifices?"
An extreme example to be sure -- but the cultural marker that it references is not at all uncommon. When it comes to religion, most people know little about their own, and even less about those of others. And in our culture, despite the degree of literacy that prevails, untold numbers of individuals get their information not from actual sources like books, but more often from various sources of questionable authority and credentials, including, of course, television and movies. And it is just the kind of person who asked that question that I am concerned about now that Mel Gibson's Passion has been released. There was nothing ill-intentioned about the question or, as far as I know, the questioner. But if that man is at all representative of any meaningful percentage of individuals out there, we have reason to be concerned.
Just before services, Rev. Gould mentioned that she does not like seeing cinematic depictions of Biblical stories, as she prefers the images she has in her own mind. I understand what she means. As a rule, I tend to avoid seeing the movie versions of books I have enjoyed. With rare exception, the lack of success at bringing any good literature to life has been disappointing . Still, I confess that some of my own understanding of certain historical events -- Apollo 13 comes to mind here -- have been informed more by the cinematic portrayals I have experienced than any fuller reading of any reliable accounts of what took place.
What is different about Mel Gibson's version of The Passion, however, is that he did not make a film about a historical event, or attempt to bring an ordinary work of fiction or non-fiction to life. His text is the holy scripture of the world's largest religious group, and he was clearly interested in more than just bringing it to the big screen. It cannot properly be compared to other cinematic treatments of biblical stories, like DeMille's Ten Commandments, but to the Passion plays that originated in Germany in the 17th century, and have proliferated since. The Ten Commandments was an attempt to dramatize a famous and beloved story, not a statement of faith. Gibson's film follows the pattern of the presentations of the Passion Play that began in Oberammagau in 1634. Having been delivered from the Plague, the villagers pledged to mount a production of the Passion narrative every ten years, which they have done faithfully -- you should pardon the pun -- ever since. Amongst those who saw a production and spoke words of praise for it was Adolph Hitler, who saw it in 1934, and praised it as a "precious tool" in the fight against Jews and Judaism.
Some of the fears espoused by certain leaders in the Jewish community are rooted in the notion that this movie will have the same kind of effect today. I must admit that until seeing the movie, I shared the same concern. No longer. My greater concern now is that the movie itself will continue to be the focus of our conversations, and not the issues that its release raises.
With your permission, then, I would like to share a few thoughts about he film, woven into what I believe to be the most important considerations as we move forward.
This film has become a lightning rod for heretofore unacknowledged culture wars that are happening in these United States and beyond. But they are not wars between Jews and Christians. They are wars between Christians and other Christians: the mainstream Catholic Church versus traditionalist Catholics who reject the reforms of the Second Vatican council; fundamentalist, non-Catholic Christians, many of whom who eschew the term Protestants, versus liberals. Yes, there are reasons for Jews to be concerned with what is portrayed in this film, not because of what it presents, but because of the zeitgeist that it reflects. In 1965, Christian-Jewish relations took perhaps the biggest step forward in history when the Second Vatican Council adapted the document, "Nostra Aetate" -- "In our time." In it, the Catholic Church unequivocally stated that neither all of the Jews of the time of Jesus nor any other Jews of any other period in time were or are responsible for his death and crucifixion, and that subsequent Catholic teaching on that matter had to reflect that position. In the years that followed, nearly every mainstream Christian group that that had not already done so followed suit. In 1988, the Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the US Council of Catholic Bishops published its "Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion", requiring sensitivity to the portrayal of Jews and commitment to the best of modern scholarship. This, of course, is the kind of departure from tradition that Gibson, amongst others, decries. What is perhaps so distressing is not that the film was made or even released, but that it has been so warmly embraced and defended by so many. In fact, while many individual bishops have spoken out against the film, few have even mentioned "the criteria", and the Bishops' Conference has not offered any statement which rebukes the film or its maker, despite its obvious and numerous violations of those criteria. Rabbi Michael Cook of HUC-JIR, a member of the scholars' committee that reviewed an early script and is now being sued by Icon productions -- and who, incidentally is scheduled to be our scholar in residence next March, by which time we pray that there will be a different atmosphere than today --- share this painful observation: "the solid bridge of trust Jews thought they had with the Catholic Church now lies exposed as merely a drawbridge, readily placed in raised position when it is most needed."
I submit that what is at work here is a different dynamic than we had thought existed. The remarkable good will and progress in interfaith relations of the last 40 years appear to have laid bare a truth that we had been avoiding: the differences in our faiths and beliefs matter more than we have articulated and perhaps have even been aware. It is clear to me that most Christians and most Jews who go to see The Passion will see two different movies. Most Jews will see a story with which they have a minimal familiarity, and frankly, find the whole thing to be pretty one-dimensional. The movie does not so much attempt to tell the story as does to dramatize the suffering that Jesus, the human being, endured. Those unfamiliar with the history of the time or the content of the Christian Scriptures may even have difficulty following the story line. Most Christians will be viewing a story that is foundational to their identity, but which they have never visualized so clearly before. And it is apparent that for many Christians, it will be a moving experience, especially those who respond to the image of suffering as a prelude to his work in the world following his death. . Not all Christians, of course -- a few months ago, during my twelfth grade class on World Religions, our guest speaker, a liberal Protestant minister, was asked about the whole matter of Jesus rising from the dead. His response: "I've always had a hard time with that, too." For him, he explained, it was the message of Jesus' life, his teaching and his example, that he embraces and that define him as a Christian -- not the suffering or the resurrection. For many mainstream Christians, it is of course the love that Jesus represents, and the promise that his resurrection entails that is the basis of their belief and faith. Yet for others, like Gibson, it appears that is the suffering itself with which they can most clearly identify, and so, is the foundation of their faith.
The problem is that for all of the value and benefit of the suffering, there continues to be the matter of anger at those who caused it. I am reminded of those who have survived serious illness or other significant challenges, and grown from the experience: they are grateful for the growth, but not what led to it. It is possible then, to be eternally grateful for the fact that Jesus was willing to endure almost unimaginable suffering, while still bearing ill will towards those who were responsible for it.
This is one of the places where the film is especially problematic. Gibson places the responsibility for the crucifixion clearly on the shoulders of the Jews -- or more specifically, the High Priest Caiaphas and his minions. We know that crucifixion was a purely Roman punishment, and neither the Gospels themselves nor Gibson attempt to refute that fact. But in direct contradiction to the Catholic bishops' criteria, Gibson places the responsibility for the decision squarely on the High Priest Caiaphas and company, and the unremitting pressure they put on the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate. Never mind that the High Priest was, in those days, appointed by Rome and served at the pleasure of the Roman government --Pilate, is portrayed as an embattled, sympathetic figure who had little choice but to give in to the unrelenting Jews.
The good news is that I, personally, did not find the film to be as blatantly anti-Semitic as I had expected, and others have. The Jews did not have Delancey street accents (and to be honest, they did not have proper Aramaic accents, either). Caiaphas and those who were part of his court looked more like a caricature of first century Romans than they did anything identifiably Jewish. Yet there is no doubt about who they are, and Gibson does little to make the Jews of the story appear particularly savory. Some pieces of the film are downright disturbing, especially those scenes which are not to be found in the Gospels at all. These are taken directly from the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich, a 19th century nun who claimed that Jesus came to her and told her what actually happened to him. I was troubled most of all by a scene which showed Jews accepting bribes to become part of the crowd demanding Jesus' death. This is exactly the kind of image about which we have every reason to be most concerned. Nowhere outside of Emmerich's writings does such an accusation exist, yet Gibson includes such images as if they are an accepted part of the story. To be fair, he did remove from the English subtitles the most incendiary text of all, the quote from Matthew 27:25 in which the Jews declare in their insistence that Jesus be subject to physical punishment, "His blood be upon us and upon our children" -- though he did have the actors say it in Aramaic, and it will be interesting to see if it turns up in the subtitled releases in other languages, in Europe and especially in the Middle East.
Ironically, Gibson set out to make what he declared was going to be the most accurate and authentic presentation of the Passion ever produced. That is a pretty tall order, unless one already begins with their own unique vision of what that would look like. Aside from the general challenge of making any movie that actually duplicates life, the material with which he was working is itself a bit problematic. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, disagree on a number of points. Let me share a few: the High Priest either does or does not accuse Jesus, the accusation occurs at night or in the morning, Jesus is crucified either before the Passover Seder or on the next day. There are also gross historical flaws, including the dialogue between Caiaphas and Pilate, all in Aramaic, when the two surely would have conversed in Greek. Latin speaking Roman centurions in first century Israel are also out of place: they, too would have been Greek speaking, indigenous mercenaries -- but in the end, these inaccuracies are not our concern.
To make this movie, Gibson had to make choices. In the end, as his recent rhetoric reflects, he chose his peculiar vision over authenticity or accuracy. And that is what we are left with today. A movie that is Mel Gibson's statement of belief, transmogrified into celluloid for all to behold. And everyone who sees it will respond to it from their own unique vantage point.
If this film is to be more than a religious Rorschach for individuals and communities, then it is up to us, perhaps most of all up to the Jewish community, to act. We can spend our energy wringing our hands and issuing statement after statement about the wrongness of this film. We can spend our energy bemoaning the lack of official condemnation of those aspects of this film that trouble us. Or we can engage in a meaningful effort to strengthen the bridges that do yet exist between us and our Christian friends, neighbors, and family -- and God willing, build new ones. There has never been a more opportune, or perhaps more advantageous time. It will first of all require educating ourselves, and by that I obviously do not mean going out to see the film -- though if you have the stomach for it, you might find some heuristic value in doing so. I wonder aloud: how many sitting here have read any of the Christian Gospels? How much any of us know about the different Christian approaches to sin and repentance, to the divinity of Jesus himself, to what the term "virgin birth" means to different kinds of Christians? And more -- I wonder how many of us understand what the Jewish concept of the Messiah is, and why we do not believe that Jesus meets the necessary criteria.
By no means do I offer these thoughts as criticism, but as a challenge. It can only serve us well to know as much as we can about the underpinnings of the dominant faith in America -- in case you were wondering, approximately 76% of Americans identify as Christians -- as well as some of the key, but often under-emphasized aspects of our own religious faith. And once we have some meaningful body of knowledge, we can comfortably engage in the kind of dialogue that is essential, perhaps now more than ever.
In two weeks, on Sunday, March 21, there will be an interfaith gathering at Hancock Church here in Lexington entitled History, Hollywood and the Bible: Reflections on Mel Gibson's "Passion". Our keynote speaker will be Dr. Paula Fredriksen of BU, another of the aforementioned group of scholars, and one of the most respected Christian voices in the world of Jewish-Christian studies. We are planning to have three respondents, one Protestant, one Catholic, and me. Assuming that program goes as expected, it will do a lot to facilitate understanding and good will. And it would be a crime to allow the opportunity for dialogue and conversation to end there. It is my expectation that following this program, there will be a renewal of interfaith dialogue in our community. While all of the sponsoring churches and synagogues are located in Lexington, please note that everyone is urged to attend this program and to participate in the ensuing dialogue, without regard to geography.
Once the conversation begins, there will be some tough issues to address. One of them will be the Gospels themselves. As evidenced by the quote from Matthew referenced earlier, taken at face value, the Gospels themselves are problematic from a Jewish standpoint. From a Christian standpoint, there is one other significant challenge: reconciling the obvious and numerous inconsistencies. We have some experience with that ourselves: The Torah and other parts of the Hebrew Bible are replete with inconsistencies, as well. In both cases, we rely on a combination of commentary, scholarship, and ultimately faith to discover the meaning that is to be found in these texts, even if they appear to be imperfect to our human eyes.
That is, in the end, the reality that we must all embrace: no religious tradition has emerged as the single path to God or knowing God's will. Each of us embraces what we do even as we try to sharpen our understanding by dulling the contradictions and shortcomings that are inherent in any human system. And the only way that we can do so with any integrity is to accord that same room for imperfection, and an equal measure of respect, for the paths of others.
Doing so sometimes requires us to employ language and even ideas that are not comfortable for us. But there is no other way. By dictionary definition, when applied to religion., the word tolerance means the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others, and not, as elsewhere, leeway for variation from a standard. That can be tricky, and it is essential. So I have an exercise for us tonight that can help. It is a prayer, based on an essay written by Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. It is written in decidedly gender specific language, the likes of which we assiduously avoid around here. Yet its message is so meaningful for this moment that I hope that we can, in this case, look beyond the words themselves and appreciate it's message. Besides, it's good practice. So if you would, please turn to the inserts found in your program, and join in as we pray responsively:
No Religion Is An Island
No religion is an island;
there is no monopoly on holiness.
We are companions of all who revere Him.
We rejoice when His name is praised.
No religion is an island;
we share the kinship of humanity,
the capacity for compassion.
The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him.
He is near to all who call upon Him in truth.
God's spirit rests upon all, Jew or Gentile,
man or woman, in consonance with their deeds.
The creation of one Adam promotes peace.
No one can claim: my ancestry is nobler than yours.
There is no monopoly on holiness;
there is no truth without humility.
We are diverse in our devotion and commitment.
We must unite in working now for the kingship of God.
He is near to all who call upon Him in truth.
There can be disagreement without disrespect.
Let us help one another overcome hardness of heart,
opening minds to the challenges of faith.
Should we hope for each other's failure?
Or should we pray for each other's welfare?
Let mutual concern replace remnants of mutual contempt, as we share the precarious position
of being human.
Have we not all one Father? Are we not all His children?
Let us not be guided by ignorance or disdain.
Let lives of holiness illumine all our paths.
The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him.
Let our deeds reflect that we share the image of God.
Let those who revere the Lord speak one to another,
leading everyone to acknowledge the splendor of God.