I publish original book reviews as well as book summaries with links to reviews I have published in various journals. Most reviews deal with my interests in psychology and religion-- especially Psychology and Christianity. I may earn income from purchases of advertised products or links.
WARNING-- The Film is violent and not suitable for all audiences.
The Passion of Christ is a graphic film that follows
a composite story line of Jesus’ final hours that includes some extrabiblical traditions
and artistic license. The opening of the film is set in Gethsemane where Jesus
is praying, and his disciples are asleep. Throughout the film, the characters
speak Latin or Aramaic. The film background explains that the Aramaic is a
Syrian version.
Judas has taken 30 pieces of silver from the Temple leaders in
Jerusalem. Judas identifies Jesus with the infamous betrayal kiss. Jesus his
arrested. Peter attempts a defence by cutting off a guard’s ear, but Jesus
insists on putting down the sword and heals the man’s ear. John runs off to
tell Jesus’ mother Mary and Mary Magdalene about the arrest.
Jesus is presented to Caiaphas the high priest who accuses
Jesus of blasphemy when Jesus admits he is the Son of God. Peter has come along
but is at a distance. When challenged about being a follower, Peter denies
Jesus three times.
Judas appears overcome with guilt and tries to return the
silver. He is tormented by demon children and hangs himself.
The high priest and others bring Jesus before Pontius
Pilate, the governor of Judea. Pilate finds no reason to condemn Jesus and
appears worried by his wife’s dream warning against condemning Jesus. Pilate
sends Jesus off to King Herod who rules over Jesus’ home district. Herod
interrogates Jesus and returns him to Pilate.
Pilate attempts to free Jesus. He tries to offer the crowd a
choice of taking one prisoner—Jesus or Barabbas. The crowd follows the lead of
the clergy and calls for Barabbas. Trapped, Pilate orders Jesus to be scourged.
The Romans appear to specialize in and take delight in mocking and whipping
Jesus. He is severely bloodied and beaten almost to death. The crowd insists on
crucifixion. Pilate washes his hands in a bowl of water and Jesus is led away
to carry a cross.
People follow Jesus as he travels the long path to Golgotha,
the hill where he will be crucified. Along the way, the woman known in
tradition as Veronica wipes his face. Jesus is constantly beaten by the Romans
and becomes too weak to carry his cross. Simon of Cyrene is pressed into reluctant
service to manage the traditional large wooden cross.
The brutal ordeal continues as Jesus is nailed to the cross
and hoisted into place. He is mocked by one criminal in contrast to the other
one who asks Jesus to remember him and receives the promise of entering
Paradise.
As time progresses, Jesus utters his final words including a
prayer to God to forgive those who are taking his life. One artistic drop of
water falls from heaven followed by a powerful earthquake that destroys the
Temple. Caiaphas appears terrified. The Satan is defeated.
True to the story, the Romans on Golgotha break the legs of
the two criminals but leave Jesus legs intact as he appears dead. A spear is
thrust into his side as if to make sure he is dead. Jesus is taken down and his
mother weeps.
The film closes as Jesus gets up and leaves the tomb. You
can see the wounds in his hands, side, and feet.
**********
The presentation of the story is a close retelling of the
traditional Catholic version of the passion story in a physical context that
adds a considerable degree of realism. The clothing and props along with the
ancient languages adds an other-worldliness amplified by the Satan and demonic.
The brutality is beyond belief to my modern mind. That is,
it is hard to believe a man could take so much abuse and still walk up a hill
to be crucified let alone carry a cross. The incredible duration and intensity
of the violent bloody torture makes the film difficult to endure and calls for
strong advice to adults who wish to avoid a potentially disturbing or even traumatic experience. It is unquestionably not suitable for children.
I found the whole presentation evoking disgust because of
the violence. I was ready for it to be over. But perhaps that’s the point. The
penalty for sin is death. And death is a painful and ugly curse on humanity.
Freedom from death comes at a price.
After watching the film more than once, I read Roger
Ebert’s review. He quotes reviewer David Ansen’s feeling of being abused
rather than moved by the portrayal of Jesus suffering. Indeed, it is difficult
to feel empathy when the visual experience is so-in-the-face bloody violent.
However, in retrospect, after the ordeal has passed, the
disturbing presentation caused me to look back on the story this Easter and feel
more empathy for the Jesus of the gospels and those who suffer in places where
religious expression is stifled by the threat of violence.
Unlike so much of scripture, which is best interpreted as
metaphor, or viewed through a lens of ancient understandings of history and
science, the passion story in the gospels portrayed in The Passion of the
Christ jarred me into recognising that sometimes a literal reading of the
old texts can be justified.
I suppose one could say, The Passion of the Christ is violence with a purpose.
Note
I watched the widescreen version of The Passion of the Christ on a DVD.
Kristin
Kobes Du Mez begins and ends her assault on militaristic white American
evangelical men with their contemporary sociopolitical leader, former
president, Donald Trump.
In
the Introduction we learn the short doctrinal list of what it means to be a
Bible-believing evangelical, but the author posits that American evangelicals
are more than a set of theological statements. Instead, since the early 1900s
they have embraced a John Wayne view of what it means to be a Christian man—a
powerful warrior for country and God—a man who leads his troops into battle to
uphold the values of God’s chosen people, the Americans.
It
was the title, Jesus and John Wayne, that was off-putting. I didn’t grow
up with John Wayne films or a love of American westerns. I was after all
British and even after arriving in America we were more likely to watch sitcoms.
But my Canadian friend kept mentioning Jesus and John Wayne. I’m glad he
did. Here’s my review.
**********
As
we follow the evangelical troops through history—mostly the last 50 years—we
learn about the power of high-profile white men whose vision of American
Christianity has dictated the distinctive roles that ordinary evangelical
Christian men and women should play if they want to make America great. According
to Du Mez, the current state of Christian America has been long in the making.
We
saddle up in Chapter 1 when Americans are off to fight in World War I for God
and country bolstered by the powerful voice of Billy Sunday and his contempt
for pacifists. After a few more pages, we learn that a group of fundamentalists (her label) formed the National Association of Evangelicals in 1942. America was of course
at war battling evil empires, which fits well with the image of what makes America
Great. So far, I don’t see a problem. We British were fighters too and American
troops and fire power saved the day. What’s not to like?
Soon,
evangelicals would embrace a handsome “All-American” man, Billy Graham, as an
unofficial leader. His rise to prominence was fuelled by the media and the conversion
of cowboy Stuart Hamblen. Graham supported a growing evangelical network that
included Wheaton College, Fuller Seminary, the National Religious Broadcasters,
Campus Crusade for Christ, and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, to name a
few well-known evangelical outposts.
Billy
Graham hardly seemed like an extremist. True, his views on women are outdated
but they weren’t unusual for the 1950s. And even looking back, he hardly seems
like an aggressive religious bully. I’m not riding with the same posse yet.
Graham’s
entry into politics had a rough start with President Truman, but he encouraged
WWII hero Dwight D. Eisenhower to run for president. He did. And Ike invited Billy to help with
religious support, which he did. Thus, early on, we see the link between white
evangelicals and conservative politics. I get this as an important connection.
Our
author pauses to backtrack a bit to trace the rise of John Wayne as his movies
showed boys how to become swaggering men with a funny accent and led them to
embrace a fierce anticommunist conservatism. Now I remember my friends trying
to walk and say stuff like John Wayne did. I don’t know what they said but one old quote
captures a lot of meaning:
“If
everything isn’t black and white, I say, ‘Why the hell not?’”
Du
Mez brings Jesus and John Wayne together in a quote from Baptist Alan Bean:
“The unspoken mantra of post-war evangelicalism was
simple: Jesus can save your soul; but John Wayne will save your ass.”
We’re
in the 1970s
now and learning about women.
Marabel
Morgan writes a best seller defining evangelical womanhood in The Total
Woman. I remember that book, but I never read it. Apparently, evangelical women learn the
secret of a happy Christian marriage, which involves treating their men like
kings, catering to their needs, and admiring his masculinity. The biblical fix
for marital strife: wives living in submission to their husbands—including sex.
My wife says she had a hard time with the old vows in 1973—that bit about “to obey.”
Anyway, we pledged our troths and we're still married.
**********
Du
Mez takes us on a rough ride through the manifest destiny of evangelical history.
Story after story reveals generation after generation of white evangelical men
preaching a gospel of male headship in the home, in the pulpit, and in society.
Of course, men as preachers is normal in church, where men have ruled for
nearly 2,000 years.
Here’s
the genealogy in the gospel according to Du Mez. In the beginning, God
called Billy Graham and he begot Franklin who lived as a fundamentalist leader unto the present. Jerry
Falwell begot Jerry Falwell who declined in influence after the book was published. James
Dobson dared to discipline and created a family-values empire characterized by
strong men, disciplined children, and loving wives. Bill Gothard begat a decades-long
ministry promoting men as leaders in a godly chain of command. By the 1980s,
Tim and Beverly LaHaye joined with Jerry Falwell and they created the foundations
for the Religious Right. The Moral Majority was born at the end of the 70s in
time to support the highly popular Hollywood Cowboy, Ronald Reagan and the Christian
conference warrior favourite, Oliver North.
And
that’s not all. Some golden oldies from the 80s were: Phyllis Schlafly, R. J.
Rushdoony, Howard Phillips, Gary North, Pat Robertson (God told him to run for
president), D. James Kennedy, Tony Perkins, Bill Bright, Ken Starr, Michael
Farris, Jesse Helms, John Ashcroft, Trent Lott, Richard DeVos, Elsa Prince,
Erik Prince, Wayne LaPierre, Richard Viguerie, Grover Norquist, Gary Bauer,
Paul Weyrich.
This
is the era of the televangelists and their sex scandals: Jim Bakker, Jimmy
Swaggart, Marvin Gorman. I guess their moral failures required a mention.
Perhaps Du Mez wants us to see a preview of evangelicals gone wild, which will
come later.
You
might recall that the Clintons weren’t the kind of Christians loved by the
evangelical juggernaut. But Bill does provide justification for the Religious Right
to call attention to the need for men of character when choosing a president.
You can tell Du Mez is setting us up for a “go-figure” moment with The Donald.
In
the 1990s,
the Christian culture war gets some powerful support from the likes of Bill
O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and the cast at Fox News. Bill McCartney kicks off Promise
Keepers and a revival of Christian manhood. On the clergy front, John Piper and
Wayne Grudem explain “complementarianism”—that’s God’s design for the two sexes who
are equal before God but different when in comes to their gender roles. (In case you did not know, evangelicals generally believe God created only two sexes and each matches their gender.)
Another
component of the evangelical good news is that God has given his people sex to
enjoy. So, purity evangelists Josh McDowell and Josh Harris become popular. Sex
also gets a boost from the likes of Mark Driscoll on Mars. Stay tuned, the
purity ball will get tarnished by the end of the book.
Through
the decades, high profile white evangelical men have one target or another to
galvanize the troops’ hunger for an enemy worthy of righteous anger and godly
hate. You know the phrase, “hate the sin” to which some add, “and love the
sinner.” Two persistent top ranked sins are abortion and same-sex
relationships. These two have stood the test of time.
Somewhere
along the line, anti-abortion becomes pro-life. And, in one form or another, the
evangelicals in this litany will remind America about homosexuality—it’s
a word with considerable purchase unlike the preferred letters LGBTQ+. Du Mez repeats
the abortion and homosexual issues, perhaps because they occur so frequently in
the ongoing culture war, which has not yet ended. By my Kindle count, abortion = 51 and homosexual = 32 occurrences.
After
911, Islam
replaced communism as the major threat to Christian America. Socialism is in
there somewhere too but Du Mez doesn’t make much of the socialism taunt.
The
evangelicals are rocked by the election of president Barrack Obama—no surprise
there.
All
this history leads up to the red-capped Donald Trump 2016 election triumph for
white evangelical Christians. Du Mez traces his rise in the primaries and the
powerful defences evangelical leaders deliver to cover outlandish comments and
hypermasculine sex-infused juicy stories in the media. We are reminded that 81%
of white evangelical voters carried Trump into the White House. What about his immorality…his
foul mouth, divorces, and Stormy’s sex? Du Mez recaps the evangelical defence.
I refer to John Wayne: “Never
apologize and never explain – it’s a sign of weakness.”
In
the final chapter, Du Mez leaves the presidency and focuses on the demise of
hypermasculine clergy. One after another man loses his position of authority. They
are tagged for their aggressive leadership or their sexual abuse. Du Mez strips
so many men of their moral robes that it seems like a sexual pandemic. They
stand before us naked as their violations of women, girls, and boys appeared in
the media.
Du
Mez concludes her cultural critique:
…understanding the catalyzing role militant
Christian masculinity has played over the past half century is critical to
understanding American evangelicalism today, and the nation’s fractured
political landscape. Appreciating how this ideology developed over time is also
essential for those who wish to dismantle it. What was once done might also be
undone.
**********
Du
Mez writes in an easy-to-read style as she weaves together quotes, survey data,
and historical events to show the close connection of white evangelical male leaders
and Republican politics, which culminated in their greatest moment in recent
history with a friend in the White House who served four years as a John Wayne-like cultural
warrior for their agenda. Like knights at the proverbial round table,
evangelicals finally had a king they could follow. They won a major battle and they remain in charge of vast cultural, religious, and geographic territory.
I
recommend Jesus and John Wayne to anyone who wants to understand the powerful
connection between militant white American evangelicals and their champion, former Bible-carrying President, Donald Trump. However,
I think she overlooked a few things along the way.
1. Du
Mez is a historian, and I am not. I won’t pretend to critique her work as
history. However, I am aware that the biblical authors praised the ancient
warriors who, credited God’s leadership as they killed the inhabitants of Canaan
and reached their promised land. And thanks to the evangelical’s American president, Israel’s
capitol at Jerusalem was finally recognised with an embassy move. The history of the warrior God is
thousands of years old. And anyone familiar with Christianity knows Jesus will
come again to ride a crimson tide of sinner’s blood in the final battle of
humankind.
So,
I think what’s missing from Du Mez castigation is an appreciation of the way
fundamentalists read the same sacred text known to Du Mez. John Wayne is a crusader
by another name. True, the gun is mightier than the sword. But in the hands of fundamentalists,
the sacred text is a powerful two-edged sword dividing truth from error, right
from wrong, good from evil. The sword cuts in two-ways.
I
doubt we would have a Jesus and John Wayne moment if Christianity did not have
a warrior God who, according to classic theology, never changes.
And I doubt we would have a large militant evangelical force if American clergy
learned to read the sacred text in a less fundamentalist manner.
Psychologically,
fundamentalism is quite appealing. A clear-cut narrative separates good from
evil, fits ancient traditions, and reduces the need for that slow cognitive effort (see Kahneman) needed
to find nuances in old texts and contemporary issues. (More on the psychology of fundamentalism.)
2. I
don’t see a lot of women either. Du Mez does not ignore women’s voices. And of
course, she is a woman with a strong voice. Perhaps it’s not her fault. I mean,
the point is that evangelical women were good women if they submitted to a man’s
authority. However, there are evangelical women, many of whom are in the
Pentecostal and Charismatic tribes, who believe in equality. If Du Mez revises her
work, I’d suggest she consider giving more time to evangelical women.
3. Her perspective on moral virtues is too
narrow for my liking. She has exposed the considerable downside of slavish support for the
moral virtues of authority, loyalty, and that which is sacred and pure without
a consideration of the importance of such virtues to a well-ordered society.
Her focus on the harm done to women and society as well as the damage caused by
inequality is noteworthy and should not be missed. I suggest a broader moral
sense (see The Righteous Mind) and a recognition of the depth of emotion
giving rise to the powerful motivations she documents would provide a basis for
considering how we might undo the damage of an extremely divided society.
4.
The conclusion leaves us wanting a solution. Consider this quote from the conclusion:
Appreciating how this ideology developed over time
is also essential for those who wish to dismantle it. What was once done might
also be undone.
I
agree that a cognitive appreciation of what happened is important to undoing
the harmful effects of vicious rhetoric, misguided “all in” obedience to
self-styled authorities who rob us of freedom even as they claim the banner of
freedom, and a shameful call to uphold that which is sacred and pure while
supporting immoral conduct with excuses and misplaced loyalty; however,
understanding does not lead to change as any psychotherapist knows. Galvanizing
action requires a strategy that recognizes a deeper understanding of the human
emotions that give rise to unrighteous minds and the concomitant violent behaviour
that threatens the foundations of democracies.
For
now, it seems evangelical culture has been bifurcated. Fundamentalists have captured
more and more cultural territory including evangelical colleges and
universities. Many elites have escaped to find a home in progressive
Christianity leaving behind an unarmed remnant to anxiously survive in no man’s
land.
About
Du Mez
Kristin Kobes Du Mez is a professor of history at Calvin
University and the author of A New Gospel for Women. She has written for the Washington Post, Christianity
Today, Christian Century, and Religion & Politics, among other publications. She lives in Grand Rapids,
Michigan.
