Not So Much Passion Of Christ

Remember the Mel Gibson movie "The Passion of Christ"? Part of the reason for its immense popularity was the realism with which Christ’s crucifixion was portrayed. Audiences were both fascinated and repulsed by all the blood and gore. It reinforced the predominant Christian tenet that Jesus endured an enormous degree of suffering, in order to take the world’s sins on his shoulders. The brutal flaying depicted in the movie was regarded as a sort of visual proof of this.

Now, a noted literary theorist has sparked fury among Christians by uttering that the Crucifixion of Christ was not as bad as it has been painted. Terry Eagleton, Professor of Cultural Theory at the University of Manchester, said so at a taping of BBC Radio 4’s program Lent Talks. The program is due for broadcast on 20th February.

Eagleton said that the scourging of Christ was a "blessing in disguise" because it hastened his death. According to him, "The Crucifixion of Jesus wasn’t as bad as it’s been painted. All things considered, he got off pretty lightly. If the New Testament account is to be believed it took him only three hours to die, whereas a lot of those killed by this hideous mode of execution thrashed around on their crosses for days."

Eagleton concluded his talk with an attack on contemporary Christianity, claiming that it had abandoned the poor and dispossessed in favor of the "rich and aggressive". "It’s (Christianity) horrified by the sight of a female breast but nothing like as horrified by the obscene inequalities between rich and poor," he stated. "By and large, it worships a god fashioned blasphemously in its own image and likeness."

Not surprisingly, traditionalists are furious with the BBC for commissioning Eagleton. The corporation is unapologetic, however. It insists that the program offers a range of perspectives, as it comprises talks given by six well-known figures, including the Bishop of Durham, the Rev Tom Wright, and Ann Widdecombe, the former Tory minister. Bishop Wright said, "Perhaps the professor might also like to get his facts straight. Jesus took six hours to die on the cross, not three." Picky, picky.

It is not my intention to be deliberatively provocative (who am I kidding?), but I do wonder why Christians – in common with most other religionists – require a tangible manifestation of Christ’s suffering. Would they, perhaps, be equally convinced that Jesus died for their sins, if his ending had not been as dramatic as a crucifixion – if he had died of old age, say? Does the horror of nails being driven into his living flesh act as a sort of catharsis for them – proof that this was the ultimate sacrifice only a God was capable of?

I could be wrong, of course, but then, how does one explain this statistic? Compared to dozens of other films about the life and times of Jesus Christ, "The Passion of Christ" is, by far, the highest grossing movie of its genre.