Greek Orthodox Opinions on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"

A Critique of the Greek Orthodox Position on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" by William J Tsamis.

As one who was raised in the Greek Orthodox Church as a child, I was curious to see what the Greek Orthodox Archbishops would say once "The Passion of the Christ" was released. And although I deeply respect the Eastern Orthodox theology of worship and the writings of the Eastern Fathers, the autocephalous churches in particular have been reduced to "ethno-centric" organizations which have unwittingly merged culture (especially the "Greeks") with church-going activities. Nevertheless, I do know some Greek Orthodox "born anew" believers who have decided to remain "in the church," perhaps hoping to be instruments of reform - sadly, I never saw this for myself because the degree of nominalism which plagues the church is simply too great in my view; for this reason I embraced the "evangelical faith" with a strong appreciation for the structures of the three communions of Christianity - Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism - all having their strengths and weaknesses, remembering the dictum of Augustine, In necessary things "unity," in things uncertain "liberty," but in all things "love." Sola Fide and Sola Gratia are the emphatic particulars of the "evangelical faith" to which I humbly submit.

Anyway, when The Passion of the Christ was due to come out, I wondered how some in the Greek Orthodox Church would opine on the film. In researching this a bit I found it a mixed bag, but most bishops and archbishops leaned "against" the film because, in their opinion, the film eclipses the the liturgies of Holy Week, which of course are ascendent in their minds. (I too agree that these liturgies are among the most beautiful liturgical psalms and processions I have ever witnessed in the church, and I will post the "Good Friday" and "Paschal" liturgies here soon.) At the same time, however, I must emphatically state that with regard to "Good Friday," nothing is as powerful as Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

Anyway, I must confess that I did anticipate some "negative" critiques of "The Passion" by Eastern Orthodox hierarchs, partly because the structure of ecclesiastical hierarchy is one where "opinions" are easy to come by, unlike the actual production of a film like "The Passion" which is an immensely difficult production, all the way down to the ancient languages. True to form, though, some bishops came out strongly against Mel Gibson, and in "authoritarian style," much like the ADL or the Simon Wiesenthal Center, these hierarchs expressed that the film is inconsistent with the New Testament or Eastern Orthodox liturgy; therefore, Greek Orthodox worshipers "should" stay away from the film, something which I have happily found to be the opposite.

Before I begin to level my critique against this Greek Orthodox article on the "Greek Orthodox" main page, please read the article so you know why I am so incensed and you can refer to the statements at which I level my complaint. Please see:

http://www.goarch.org/en/news/NewsDetail.asp?id=1084

In the first article from the "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America" called, Observations by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America On Mel Gibson's film THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, there is a statement which expresses the concern of the [Very Reverend Leaders] of the Diocese of Chicago which says "our [Very Reverend Leaders] of Chicago criticize the film for including a significant amount of material not found in the Gospel accounts of Christ’s arrest, trial and crucifixion, and expresses regret that the message of Jesus is apparently reduced to His sufferings. It strikes me as strange that the men who are hierarchs in a major archdiocese such as Chicago do not have the discernment to understand that "this film," as the opening words on the screen from Isaiah 53 clearly state, has to do with the suffering of the Servant of God. That these leaders criticize a wonderful, once in a lifetime Christian film and holy experience because it only focuses on the "sufferings of Jesus" and not the "teachings of Jesus" is, to me, an irresponsible and idiotic statement. (I say "idiotic" because these men are supposed to be learned as is "hierarchs" in the church.)

Without a detailed exposition of the whole film, the theme of the "Suffering Servant" (Isa 53) as played out in "The Passion" is full of Jesus's teachings: The Incarnation and Condescension of our Lord and his Exaltation (Phil 2:5-11) is clear. The "protoevangelium" and the crushing of the serpent's head by the willing act of the Son of God is in plain view. Remembering the Eucharist, he commits his body and blood to eternal rememberance. No one takes his life, but he lays down his life of his own accord and conquers death in the resurrection. He proclaims that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one can come to the Father except through Jesus (a message of exclusivism). He commands us to love one another. Without words, he teaches the forgiveness of John 8 in the pericope of "casting the first stone." He tells Pilate that he was born to be a king, and he dies in our stead in order to reconcile us with the Father in order to establish that kingdom. He conquers Satan and makes all things new. And I can go on and on and on . . . but "the gospel" is clearly proclaimed in this film; in fact, it is "played out" as a "Passion Play." There is nothing new about "Passion Plays" and their meaning, is there?

And apart from Jesus's teaching, there is the scene of Simon Peter after he has denied Jesus three times. I nearly sobbed, remembering the words that "we are all Peter" - certainly I am. If this film did not convey adequate teaching to these ecclesiastical hierarchs of Chicago, then either they do not understand the New Testament or they are prone to criticism because they have become "self-exalted" and drunk in their hierarchical position. Yes, there was a school of men like that 2,000 years ago.

And the article says these [very Reverend leaders] criticize the film for including a significant amount of material not found in the Gospel accounts of Christ’s arrest, trial and crucifixion. Like what? Traditions like "Veronica's Veil" and the print of Jesus's face on the veil? Or the torment of Judas by little children? Apart from some of the traditional material that would be expected from a Roman Catholic filmmaker (e.g. Veronica's Veil), everything else consisted of possible scenarios which could have happened, or they were "artistic" renderings such as those "artistic" renderings which are present in the Greek Orthodox Church. Did Jesus ever wear the crown of a king? Of course not, and when we see such iconography in Eastern Orthodoxy we understand the symbolism of Jesus Christ as the "King of Kings." Moreover, since Mel Gibson only had 2 hours to convey the story, he had to be selective, even as any director would be selective in choosing their material. "The Passion of the Christ" is a wonderful piece of art based on the Gospels .... it is nothing more, nothing less.

Then we read about the [hierarchs] of Boston (by the way, Chicago and Boston are cities in which hundreds of thousands of Greek Orthodox parishoners live). Anyway, we read on this "official website," Another statement, from our Metropolis of Boston, acknowledges the possibility that the film may lead the viewer “to reflect deeply on the pain of Christ’s passion.” Elsewhere in the world, Orthodox Christian leaders have expressed dismay at the emotionalism produced by the film, which contrasts with the sobriety of the Orthodox hymnology and art of the Holy Week services. He acknowledges the possibility that the film may lead the viewer "to reflect deeply on the pain of Christ's passion." Is that a bad thing? To contemplate the excessive suffering of the Son of God for my sins had a profound effect not only on me, but on my wife and my ten year old daughter who is knowledgeable about Jesus and his substitutionary suffering and death for her sins, and his resurrection on the third day so that she may have eternal life. And then we read that the emotionalism contrasts the sobriety of the Orthodox hymnology and art of the Holy Week. I was stunned when I read this! I have been to many Holy Week liturgies and I understand everything as a Christian theologian; but when I lift up my eyes during a long Holy Week liturgy, all I see is hundreds of people "going through the motions" not understanding a thing, nor being able to relate to (or understand) "the sobriety" of Byzantine art and hymnology which is over a thousand years old. "Sobriety?" In Greece and in areas where there are many Greeks in the United States (including where I live), "Holy Saturday" leading up to midnight Easter Sunday is actually a fireworks fest with cherry bombs, M-80s, and other illegal fireworks not unlike the Fourth of July. What was that about sobriety?

In "The Passion of the Christ" there is not a sound - everyone is engaged with what is happening on the screen. And even the nominal Christian who would be bored to death by hours of Orthodox liturgy can become a changed person by seeing and experiencing "The Passion." I've seen it over and over with my own eyes, and the film has only been in the theaters for a week and a half.

Finally, with all due respect to the Eastern Orthodox Church, as the article says there is a continuing dialogue which I have noticed is swaying in the direction of supporting "The Passion." This is not "The Last Temptation of Christ" but a powerful film which is faithful to the Gospels and has already had a profound effect on Christian believers all over the world. Hopefully, the main website of the "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America" will choose to place a more positive and encouraging article on "The Passion."