« Medical Science Isn't His Forte | Main | Even More About Andy »

February 25, 2004

Impersonal... Jesus...

Today's the big day, the day on which Jesus - King of Kings, Lord of Lord, Highest of the Most High, and "Peter, I can see your house from up here!" - comes back to reign supreme over the box office (as predicted in the Book of Revelation), courtesy of Mr. Braveheart and his envangelical vehicle, "The Passion of the Christ."

With a title like that, and with Monica Bellucci in a starring role, I was hoping for something a bit sexy and wild, but apparently that's simply not the case. Apparently this displeases someone at the Hollywood Reporter as well:

The Reporter also says that the movie's violence is so intense and more important than character development that audiences may have trouble with that.

Character development? How, precisely, does the critic expect there to be character development, when the source material is positively devoid of any? Violence is easy - the Bible is chock full of it (smite this, smote that, fire and brimstone on the lot of ya - and get off my porch, you kids!).

Character development... good luck with that.

I suppose Mel could have shown us how Jesus felt guilt upon reading Penthouse Papyrus. Or how Judas was the product of a violent home which confused him sexually and emotionally. Or how Monica Bellucci looks good even when not wearing much makeup and caked in dirt, and I realize that's not character development, but that's ok, as Monica's a hottie.

However, none of that is to be found in the New Testament. It's an archetypal myth, a fairly standard interpretation of the hero's journey. The purpose of the myth is to explain something to members of a culture - origins, morals, the number of licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop - not to develop complicated characters with whom we connect on a deep emotional level, for whom we have complex feelings and a sense of real association beyond "good guy" and "bad guy."

Which, in a roundabout way, brings me to the point that hit me last night: Why is it that many Christians (particularly of the Protestant, evangelical variety) claim to have a "personal relationship with my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?"

How is this possible, given that the source material is rather bland, and assuming for the sake of argument that they've never had an interpersonal exchange with Jesus (except, perhaps, for their Mexican yardboy of the same name, but who only speaks Spanish, and so the end result is about the same)?

When I think of my own personal relationships, there are certain elements that are required. At the minimum, a general knowledge of personality and behaviors - at the maximum, an intimate understanding of psyche, likes, dislikes, hopes, dreams, and more. From acquaintance to friend to spouse, they're all defined by a spectrum of the above - and for those for whom I can't offer any meaningful knowledge of the above, well, those are the everyday people on the street. The ones I pass without a second thought. The ones who pass me with same.

So, tell me something meaningful about Jesus' personality. Tell me his favorite song, his favorite food, his dreams for himself and others. I mean, aside from the superficial information provided in the Bible, which amounts to a willingness to sacrifice for a greater good, no different than even the most basic of childhood stories.

Tell me something that makes him leap from the page and become a flesh and blood human being with depth of character and emotion. And then tell me how you know this, and why I should not think you crazy for claiming such knowledge. Because I doubt you got it from the New Testament - which means you've picked it up from your church (who have no more grounds to assert such knowledge than you), from Hollywood (ditto), from books (ditto), or from the voices in your head (which may or may not be Jesus talking - and either way, you're probably nuts).

Personal relationship with Jesus? I doubt it.

(this rather lengthy, rambling post was inspired by a comment I left here)