Film and TV re-tellings of the gospel stories have been a mixed blessing. There are a few gems (’Miracle Maker’, ‘The Gospel According to St Matthew’ and ‘Jesus of Montreal’ spring to mind) but these are the exception, not the rule. Who can forget ‘The Greatest Story Ever Told’ (if you can watch John Wayne’s centurion and keep a straight face, you’re made of sterner stuff than me) or the appalling ‘Passion of the Christ’? (If you think that’s heresy, don’t bother saying so. I’ve been through all that)
However, the news that the BBC will be showing a new drama about the last week in the life of Jesus is encouraging. This is the sort of thing that the BBC can do exceptionally well, and I have high hopes.
The Passion will be shown in 4 episodes, and the schedule has been confirmed this afternoon as follows:
Monday 17th March, BBC ONE, 8:30pm
Good Friday 21st March, BBC ONE, 9pm
Easter Sunday 23rd March, BBC ONE, time TBC (around 8pm)
One to watch, I reckon.
{ 52 comments… read them below or add one }
Peter M. Carey 03.05.08 at 4:18 pm
Do you know if there will be any way people in the U.S. will be able to watch the BBC “Passion”?
I look forward to getting a chance to see it,
Thanks,
Peter M. Carey+
DH 03.05.08 at 4:22 pm
Well Richard, if you have “been over that” then why mention “appauling” in reference to “The Passion of the Christ” in the first place? It just “begs the question”
James 03.05.08 at 4:51 pm
The Passion of the Christ was pretty poor.
To link this into another discusion - I think things like this are more effective ways of evangelism.
DH 03.05.08 at 5:02 pm
James, I don’t agree that it is very poor.
James 03.05.08 at 5:46 pm
The Passion of the Christ? It was too mixed up with that Catholicism nonsense. It tried to guilt trip everyone into accepting Jesus. I think it focused too heavily on the violent nature of Jesus’ death and not enough on what it meant. At the end the resurrection was like they just made him come back to life so they could make a sequel if the film made enough money.
Also the director is a racist.
DH 03.05.08 at 7:56 pm
Well James, wasn’t the actual crusifixion of Jesus actually violent? Guilt trip? How about the passage “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” To me before we accept Christ we are all guilty so this accusation doesn’t hold up to the fact that people DO need to recognize their guilt and consequences.
I didn’t see much Catholicism. I understand the writer was Catholic but I didn’t see much of that. I still don’t believe he is a racist I understand what he said while drunk but I don’t believe that is what he actually believes. People say things they don’t believe while drunk. (That doesn’t condone it for he did sin.) All this “anti-Jew stuff that people accused him for was flat wrong. If one reads Scripture what he showed followed Scripture.
Richard 03.05.08 at 7:59 pm
>>“Well Richard, if you have “been over that” then why mention “appauling” in reference to “The Passion of the Christ”…
You got me there. Of course I knew it would provoke a reaction. But if I’d not mentioned it in this context, someone else would have. So I decided to get my revenge in early. I know you don’t agree, DH, but I thought TPofC stank at every level and there isn’t any point in trying to persuade me otherwise. I try to be open-minded, but this is one occasion when I’m certain that my mind is resolutely made up, and there’d be no point in my pretending otherwise.
For those who are interested, here’s my reaction on first seeing the film.
Richard 03.05.08 at 8:21 pm
James - you should know that your comment about ‘catholicism nonsense’ is very near to the offensive line in my view. (And it’s my blog)
But the film was very heavily steeped in extra-biblical Catholic tradition, DH. Absolutely loaded with it.
Kim 03.05.08 at 8:48 pm
Hi James and DH,
Roman Catholicism in The Passion there certainly is. Along with (if I remember correctly) its homage to Mary and its medieval “blood and wounds” imagery (over-over-done: that the crucifixion was violent is no excuse for showing us an abattoir - observe how demure the gospels themselves are), the Via Dolorosa sequence is actually based on The Stations of the Cross. To my mind, structurally at least, that is one of the film’s few redeeming features (there is something almost liturgical about it which one can appreciate). Left to his own personal devices, Gibson turns out a dog’s breakfast. The film demonstrates yet again that the only way to do Jesus directly is to do what the Marxist-atheist-homosexual Pasolini did: stick to a gospel, play it straight, avoid psychologising and hypothesising (Judas is a director’s graveyard), and go easy on the cinematic tricks.
By the way, whether or not Gibson himself is anti-Semitic is neither here nor there unless it comes out in the film - and it surely does.
malc 03.05.08 at 9:19 pm
You know, when I saw the title I suspected that this was going to be a rant about the BBC planning on showing The Passion Of The Christ at easter. Oh well, I was wrong.
James 03.05.08 at 9:27 pm
In the film a raven eats the eyes of the person being cruxified next to Jesus. While I accept the way I said it at first was a bit strong - how can we take this as anything other than nonsense?
DH, Pauls Epistle to the Romans isn’t trying to guilt trip people like this film was. The violence would have been more justifiable if they had actually given it a purpose, which I think they failed to do.
Back to the subject of the post - I think it could be good but I’m worried they might water down some of the theological implications of the cruxifiction.
Beth 03.05.08 at 9:34 pm
I’ve just taught a class on the crucifixion in Medieval literature. While early medieval visions of the crucifixion didn’t really focus on the pain and suffering of Christ (partly because it would have been considered inappropriate for such an important figure to be shown in such a degraded state), the later medievals were almost obsessively interested in the gory details. Non-biblical traditions grew up around the crucifixion - Jesus’ teeth were broken, the thorns entered his brain-pan, his limbs were stretched with cords because they didn’t fit to the nail-holes on the cross, the size of the nails stopped blood from coming out of the wounds… These and many other details were added to the gospel narratives. People would meditate constantly on Jesus’ wounds, his blood, his stretched skin, his pain. It was considered an important part of Christian devotion.
What Gibson has done in his film, it seems to me, is analagous to this. It’s a re-focussing of the gospel narrative, with extra details added and extra blood and gore, in order to inspire greater devotion. The Passion of the Christ as an interpretation of the gospel narratives has a respectable pedigree. Of course, one might argue that we should have moved on from medieval hermeneutics by now. After all, if we still thought about Biblical translation the way they did back then, the authors of The Street Bible or The Message would have been burned at the stake by now.
DH 03.05.08 at 10:05 pm
I don’t see the anti-semeticism in the movie. The fact remains that the Pharisees did pay money to Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus and they were the ones who found him guilty enough to send Jesus to Pontius Pilate. Nothing in the movie made the Jews harsher than was stated about them in Scripture.
I agree some “literary license” was done in the movie. I agree that a couple of scenes could have been removed but not such that I “throw the baby out with the bath water”.
I will say that Gibson did a fabulous job on the portrayal of Judas Iscariot. With all of these “alternative views” of Judas it is great that Gibson showed that in fact Judas had “satan enter him” just like Scripture said and also showed how Judas killed himself. The fact remains since satan entered Judas Iscariot then we shouldn’t feel “positive” to him in any way. We can feel sorry for him that he allowed himself to get in that position but the fact remains “satan entered him” like Scripture says.
Olive Morgan 03.06.08 at 9:36 am
Why all this mud-raking over a fil that is now in the past. I’m supposed to be the elderly blogger here (always looking back at the past which usually comes with old age) but I want to put that behind me and give the BBC a chance to show a new drama. Our viewing and our advertising of The Passion should not be besmirched by our prejudices. I am reminded of the motto on the safety curtain of the old Garrick Theatre in Southport, which read “La critique est aisee, mais l’art est difficile.” Let us pray that this new drama (not intended to be theological) may speak to many who have not previously been stirred by the Gospel and that we may be ready to help them to accept all the theological implications so dear to us.
Beth 03.06.08 at 10:17 am
Olive, your attitude is naive. No cultural product exists in isolation, but is informed by what has come before it. More than that, our attitudes to it will be influenced by having encountered other similar products. That’s how art works - it’s a system that relies on influence, tradition, and allusion.
Olive Morgan 03.06.08 at 12:10 pm
Beth, Your comment shows me why I am so unhappy in my blogging with Blogspot, which is peopled only with critical theologians (and art critics). Where are the young unchurched? Not using or visiting Blogspot! My only reason for blogging was to reach these young people and I cannot get out of the habit of writing for and thinking of them. They will not have seen “The Pasion of the Christ” as you and I did. They will be naive and will need us to help them interpret what they have viewed until they are ready to accept Jesus as their Saviour. With Modblog I was ale to give such help.
Kim 03.06.08 at 1:16 pm
Hi Olive,
Perhaps I am not the person to come in here, as I know how exasperated you are with me, but please try to understanding where Beth, who herself is a young person and knows her bananas, is coming from - which is precisely the real world. It is most definitely not the real world to think that any drama about Jesus could be untheological, just as it is sheer naivety to think that we come to anything - literature, movies, people, the Bible, Jesus - without presuppositions and pre-judices. And that (I’m pretty sure) is what Beth is trying to say.
Ironically, although the “view from nowhere” (as it has been perceptively called) does not exist, yet it is this delusion of utter objectivity that lies behind the secular world smugly pronouncing on religion in a we-know-better and “There, there, you poor benighted Christians, continue with your superstitions if you like, but keep it to yourselves” kind of way.
Above all, please don’t be unhappy with blogspot, and certainly not Connexions. We are all (I think!) trying to help here, and we need a plurality of voices to do so.
Dave Warnock 03.06.08 at 1:44 pm
Olive,
Just to sidetrack for a minute to something you said. I hope that is ok.
“Where are the young unchurched? Not using or visiting Blogspot!”
I think young people and unchurched people are usig blogspot in their 1,000’s. But the difference is that blogspot does not have a community of it’s users. There is no connection formed between people simply because they are both using blogspot. i.e. blogspot is a publishing tool, not a community. In exactly the same way I am not part of a real community through using typepad. On the other hand if I used a very obscure blogging tool and got into the development/support of that then that might make a natural community.
I think it is a common phenomenon that when online gated (restricted to signed up users) communities move onto the open internet community is quite different. I saw it with Compuserve in the mid 90’s and with bulletin boards before that and email lists more recently.
In terms of community among bloggers it comes from the interaction between them, that comes from blogging about each other, from reading and commenting on each others blogs.
So if we want a community that reaches young unchurched people then one way is to frequent blogs where they are asking questions, where there is a debate wanted/expected (so it won’t work to simply find any old unchurched blog and started commenting on faith issues).
Another is to look a more community orientated sites, especially ones built around a common interest.
In terms of our own blogs one way is to write on topics other than faith which will bring a wider community into the community around that blog and through natural friendship faith issues may emerge.
Hope that helps.
Beth 03.06.08 at 7:50 pm
Olive, why are you so keen to cherry-pick your audience? Are you afraid that the grown-ups will sometimes tell you that you’re wrong?
The young people are using Blogspot. They’re just mainly not that interested in talking about Jesus. Fair enough - I never was either, because most of the Christians I met were a bunch of patronising buggers who thought I was naive and needed guidance. Until Kim, that is, who took even my most annoying and insulting questions with patience and humour, didn’t dumb down, and made me see what it means to live your belief in Christ. Kim’s not infallible - but one of his major qualities was (and is) that he would listen when a young, unchurched person like me told him that he isn’t infallible.
We need to stop assuming that the only way to understand a film like The Passion of the Christ is to be a Christian. The perspectives of the unchurched, of Muslims and Jews, of feminists and Marxists, of anyone who has something to say, should make us think about the Bible story and go beyond our inbuilt Christian interpretations of it. Seeing with new eyes is never a bad thing. Instead of teaching, why not be taught?
DH 03.06.08 at 8:27 pm
I will learn from the perspectives of the unchurched only when it is consistent with Scripture. Therefore, I reject the teachings of Muslim’s, Marxist’s and some feminist’s (notice I said some because some promote abortion). I don’t reject the Jewish perspective in that before Christ Jews believed the one true God (at least those who believed and obeyed God by Faith in the one true God). So for me, I don’t want to be drawn away from the Truth of God’s Word. We shouldn’t look at the Passion of the Christ from “False god” eyes except from the perspective that these people need to accept Christ as their Savior. The goal is “for as many as receive to them He gave them power to be Sons of God.”
Sue 03.07.08 at 1:43 am
My advice would be to run as fast as you can from a religion that uses such a film as a recruiting tool.
Why?
Because it is a brutal sado-masochistic snuff movie.
See:
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_3.2/hammer_kellner.htm
http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl.htmlpage7
Bene D 03.07.08 at 3:26 am
A 30 million dollar production.
Grossed $370,782,930.
Mad Mel made a bundle.
How much did the BBC pay for it, and what is their payoff?
Richard 03.07.08 at 9:49 am
I’m sure I read somewhere that this series cost £4m , and I imagine that the BBC are hoping to turn a profit on worldwide sales.
My expectations of what’s on offer are even highter than they were before: I gather that the producer, Nigel Stafford-Clark, is saying that he has been heavily influenced by Pasolini’s ‘Gospel According to St Matthew’, so he’s off to a good start in my book.
I’m looking forward to watching it. I understand that the series has been co-financed by HBO, and I’d be surprised if deals have not been done for it to be shown internationally.
PamBG 03.07.08 at 12:12 pm
How much did the BBC pay for it, and what is their payoff?
What on earth does that mean?
The BBC didn’t have to pay Mel Gibson for the plot; the story is in the bible.
The BBC aren’t showing Mel Gibson’s film; they wrote their own mini-series on the story of Jesus.
And what a lot of vitriol on this thread.
DH 03.07.08 at 2:44 pm
Sue, it is only a “sado-masachestic movie” if you don’t believe that Jesus died a violent death which in fact He did from Scripture. The fact remains that Jesus’s death was in a violent way. The Roman’s tortured Him, the Pharisee’s condoned the torture,etc. Scripture is very descriptive and plain with regard to how Christ died and the fact remains it was violent.
DH 03.07.08 at 2:46 pm
To how much a person made is really beside the point. It only makes since that writers get properly paid for their work whatever it is and this doesn’t go against Scripture. “Equal pay for equal work” is in the Bible.
Richard 03.07.08 at 3:05 pm
TPofC does seem to stir people up. I didn’t like it, that’s all.
And I’m looking forward to the BBC production.
Olive Morgan 03.07.08 at 5:03 pm
Yes, indeed, Pam. This has been the worst exchange in all my years of blogging - to have been so completely and regularly misunderstood!
Beth and Kim - I don’t pick and choose. My sole reason for blogging is to spread the Good News of Jesus and the many young people who flocked to my site on Modblog showed that they were eager to hear and discuss. This sort of ding dong on Connexions between Christians is not, in my opinion, helping the Kingdom of God.
Richard - Whether any of us liked or disliked the film “The Passion of the Christ” is irrelevant at this stage. The fact remains that millions of people will soon be viewing “The Passion” and talking about it afterwards. So it is surely important that Christians should be ready to discuss it when it comes up in conversation. No need to bring up the earlier film - unless others do so. (Christians can make their comparisons, if they must, after the showing of “The Passion” but not in such a way as to cloud the issue before others have seen it and formed their own opinion.)
I have posted twice on Octomusings to publicise “The Passion”, using quotes, and there is an important comment on my latest post, which is worth reading..
tortoise 03.07.08 at 5:10 pm
“Equal pay for equal work” is in the Bible.
Well, I’m trying to think of the reference for that. At the moment, all I’m coming up with is a Biblical affirmation of “equal pay for UNequal work” ( Matthew 20:1-15). How strange.
DH 03.07.08 at 6:14 pm
Tortoise, it does talk about “property rights” in the Bible. Here is a post from the blog “Locust and Honey” (Richard’s fellow Methodist site
) that addresses “property rights” and confirms my view that how much Gibson is paid is not really an issue:
http://locustsandhoney.blogspot.com/2006/12/biblical-view-of-property-rights.html
This was the context from which I spoke. I misspoke with regard to “pay” what I meant to address was “disposition of property” and “property rights” whcih are confirmed in Scripture. Thanks for the clarification statement, tortoise. I hope this helps.
Kim 03.07.08 at 7:05 pm
“Vitriol”? “Ding dong”? Really? Golly. I know there have been some misunderstandings - it seems to be the nature of the beast of blog - but I thought we were making progress. Oh, well, as Jesus said, “There’s nowt so queer as folk.”
As for the BBC production of the Passion, I’ll tape it and read the reviews - and, most importantly, ask Richard about it. True (speaking of ding dong), he didn’t like King Kong, but otherwise he’s a great critic, and on other Jesus productions we are in complete agreement. Besides, I think the Monday night episode clashes with Coronation Street.
Paul Martin 03.07.08 at 7:07 pm
Now you’re going down in my estimation Kim. BTW how is the boy Platt doing nowadys?
Kim 03.07.08 at 7:22 pm
Hi Paul,
You mean there was lower to go?! Is it King Kong or Coronation Street? Rowan Williams, you know, once commended soaps to his clergy. And King Kong is one of cinema’s great Christ figures.
David Platt, if you are interested, has just knocked up his girl friend of a month, Tina, whose name he has had tatooed on his arm. The poor kid’s a psycho - so he’d fit right in here at Connexions!
Richard 03.07.08 at 7:39 pm
Frivolity first…
Kim, I’m distressed at you bringing up King Kong again. Three hours of my life wasted on your recommendation! I know, I should forgive you. It will take time. It’s that reminding me of the offence isn’t helpful. There should only be one film that carries the title King Kong. The two remakes were a pile of foetid dingoes kidneys.
But seriously…
Olive, I’m disturbed that this conversation has upset you, and I’d rather delete the whole thread than have that continue. Say the word, and it’s gone without any further ado. It was never supposed to be about the Mel Gibson film, which I mentioned only to place the BBC production in context. There have been Jesus films that I’ve liked, and some that I haven’t, and I really (really!) didn’t like Gibson’s effort. But as I keep saying, I’m looking forward to the BBC production very much.
PamBG 03.07.08 at 8:41 pm
I know there have been some misunderstandings - it seems to be the nature of the beast of blog - but I thought we were making progress.
I have no idea what kind of progress had been made prior to my post, care to point out what I missed?
Kim 03.07.08 at 9:04 pm
Hi Pam,
The conversation between Dave W and me, which grew out of the conversation with Olive? And where is the problem over the discussion about the Passion? Disagreement sure, but “vitriol”? This is beginning to remind me of Mark Twain’s great aphorism “To the pure, all things are impure.”
PamBG 03.07.08 at 10:18 pm
Kim:
And where is the problem over the discussion about the Passion? Disagreement sure, but “vitriol”?
Well, besides your discussion, I saw slurs made against Catholics and the idiotic accusation that the BBC had paid off Mel Gibson.
Like Richard, I’m not even a fan of Mel Gibson’s The Passion and wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, but what is productive about accusing him of of being a racist and an anti-Semite? Not to mention, what on earth does any of it have to do with the BBC production? “Don’t watch the BBC Production because Gibson is a Catholic”? Give me a break.
This is just the written equivalent of a punch-out.
OK, if you want me to soften ‘vitriol’, how about utter nonsense?
I’m not always targeting you with my comments by the way. :~ And, yes, Dave W’s post was fine, but it wasn’t about ‘The Passion’ (either one of them) and it didn’t take away from the fact that the rest of the idiocy was there.
Kim 03.07.08 at 10:53 pm
Hi Pam,
Thanks for that. At least now I know what you are referring to and what’s pissed you off. And I agree with most of the points you make (especially about the anti-Catholic remarks). And it has been an odd thread. I guess the main thing is that Olive has been upset and you have been upset and it all seems to me such a dumb thing to get upset about. On the other hand, who am I to tell you what to get upset about? Anyway, take care - and knock ‘em dead on Sunday! And you, Olive, have a good weekend - and enjoy the rugby.
Richard 03.08.08 at 12:21 am
I’m glad that’s all sorted out!
While I’m thinking about it: I don’t think BD was suggesting that the BBC had paid off Mel Gibson. I *think* the question being raised was whether the BBC were in it for the money, following the pile that Mr Gibson made. I think.
Looking back over the comments, this has indeed been a strange thread but we’ve still got a promising tv programme to look forward to.
Beth 03.08.08 at 2:23 am
“And, yes, Dave W’s post was fine, but it wasn’t about ‘The Passion’ (either one of them)”
I’m interested. In a regular conversation, we would be really unlikely to get annoyed if someone took a tangent from what someone else had said and ran with it. Rather, that kind of negative response is one we’d expect in an educational situation, business meeting, or something of that sort. Why, then, are we annoyed when comments on a blog take tangents and run with them? Sure, Dave W’s comment wasn’t about the original post by Richard, but it was a legitimate reaction to Olive’s previous comment.
I guess what I’m saying is that I’m having a problem with working out the genre of this blog - is it a place for discussion, even if that discussion doesn’t remain on a single track, or is it a place where we take the topics the main posters provide us with, and discuss them in a school-like fashion, with points deducted for moving away from the original subject?
I see the argument against moving into topics that will cause emotional responses (though I don’t actually agree with that argument), but what’s the problem with a legitimate sidetrack that adresses an interesting issue?
Kim 03.08.08 at 10:30 am
These are quite excellent points, Beth.
And, Richard, I am absolutely sure that you are right about BD, and was going to say so in my previous post but didn’t. Thanks.
PamBG 03.08.08 at 2:31 pm
Actually, this whole thread is getting to be a bit of a waste of time, but I find it weird to say that Olive and I were getting upset when we weren’t the ones making aggressive ad hominem remarks. But in this blog, I always seem to be in topsy-turvy land.
Beth, I’m not annoyed at Dave W and Kim for taking a tangent. I thought Kim had said that the discussion had been making real progress in its talking about ‘The Passion’ and all I saw was generally aggressive and nasty remarks about Mel Gibson.
As I said, I’m not always attacking Kim. I just don’t much like ad hominem remarks and I don’t think that they are particular Christian. In this case, Kim wasn’t making them. :-0
Beth 03.08.08 at 2:59 pm
Nope, but I think I was… I also think there’s a distinction to be made between ad hominem remarks and questioning the motivations or standpoints of the people you discuss with. I wouldn’t like someone to say to me “oh well, you’re an Anglo-Catholic, so you would think that…” or “Beth, you’re always talking crap, so do us a favour and shut up”. On the other hand, I would welcome someone who said “Why are you so against Christian witnessing? It seems you have a real prejudice - are you ashamed of being a Christian? Or are you scared you won’t fit in with the cool kids?” They would be making a very valid interpretation of things I have said, and I would either try to defend or explain my position, or agree that perhaps I needed to rethink my attitude.
It always seems a shame to me when discussions are shut down through over-sensitivity. I don’t believe I can grow as a Christian or as a human being unless I’m challenged - even if the challenge cuts close to the bone at times. And silencing other people by claiming that they’re being unpleasant isn’t, in my view, a mature way of arguing. Sure, sometimes people will be nasty. If it’s pointless and egregious nastiness, then ignore it or ask Richard to decide whether the comment should be removed. If it’s a nastiness whose roots are in a challenge to someone’s authority, ideas, motivations, or way of thinking, then that’s something to be embraced. It’s like putting antiseptic on a wound - it stings like hell, but it helps in the end.
Thanks for clarifying re. the tangents, Pam. I see what you meant now. Sorry I misunderstood.
Richard 03.08.08 at 3:06 pm
I confess to being thoroughly confused by the twists and turns this thread has taken. Perhaps now is the time to let it go.
If I’ve contributed to misunderstanding, I apologize. We’re all friends here, and I want to keep it that way. There are blogs where people meet to beat one another up, but I don’t want this to become one of them.
Group hug?
PamBG 03.08.08 at 3:48 pm
And silencing other people by claiming that they’re being unpleasant isn’t, in my view, a mature way of arguing. Sure, sometimes people will be nasty.
Beth, whatever you think I’m doing, trying to silence people isn’t one of them.
You know what? I really don’t know how to play by whatever ‘rules’ it is that you’re trying to set up, so let me vent my annoyance in a Pam-way.
I don’t appreciate being told what I’m thinking and what my motivations are, particularly by someone who has got them wrong. You’ve delivered your little lecture now and the result of your projections and your scolding is that I’m going to shut up now because trying to communicate with you - at the moment - is not worth my time.
You can ‘tell it like you think it is’ and so can I.
So, as a French friend of mine would say: ‘La!’
PamBG 03.08.08 at 3:56 pm
Richard, I apologise. I didn’t see your post as I tend to read posts one at a time. My bad. I’m shutting up and going away now. I don’t feel much like hugging at the moment as I feel that I’ve been told that my views are not welcome (I know you didn’t say that). I’ll get over it, though.
Olive Morgan 03.08.08 at 7:28 pm
No, Richard, there’s no need to delete any of this thread, but it would do well for us all to remember that our comments go out world-wide and since it is a Methoblog (and therefore Christian) we have a responsibility to write in the spirit of Christian love, without name-calling, ridiculing, talking down or telling off even. It should be possible to do so even when we disagree or don’t see the other’s point. Shalom!
allison 03.21.08 at 1:40 pm
wow. . . have just come in on this, and it seems so complex. Surely Gods love is so much more simple than this, in my humble opinion, which is not an academic one, take from this . . . in quietness and in confidence, shall be your strength. sshhhhh x
MJCG 03.24.08 at 8:12 am
I have searched the web wanting to discuss BBC’s ‘The Passion’. Is this thread interested in this?
I found myself initially unsympathetic and resistant to the portrayal of Jesus who seemed too ordinary, without miracle or spiritual presence. I know the producer wanted to make it down to earth. However by the final episode I was so attracted to this man-God, I’ve taken for granted, it reinvigorated my faith. They took out the hidden meanings and metaphors in his words but gave an new authenticity. I particularly liked how they used the amibiguity of it all to its strength. How the resurrected Jesus appeared as different men was very clever. So much so that it was so powerful when Jesus’s final words were exchanged with Peter. Awesome.
Richard 03.24.08 at 9:02 am
I missed the final part, but I am planning to blog about this when I’ve caught up with it. Like you, I found that the series ‘grew on me’. There was quite a bit to like about it.
Beth 03.24.08 at 4:01 pm
I also missed the final part of this, but was severely disappointed with the rest. I’ll look forward to hearing your views on it, Richard.
MJCG 03.25.08 at 8:05 am
The final part is worth seeing. If you have broadband you can watch it again on the BBC’s iplayer. Really worth the effort to download this software for free.