Local "Passion" vs Global "Passion"

In a comment left on yesterday's post, in which I referred to the rather hectic rehearsal schedule for our church's "passion play," Mr. Freen asked the following questions:

Has seeing Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ" influenced the outlook of the organizers and participants? Do you think audiences will be comparing your group's "Passion" with the film version, and if so, to what extent?

Those are good questions, and, in fact, I anticipated them a few weeks ago in this post entitled "Will 'The Passion' Dampen Passion For Passion Plays?".

I concluded that short post thusly:

I think the value of locally-produced presentations like we're working on is that they will generally present a more complete picture of Jesus' life. Even though we call it a "Passion Play," there's much more to it than just the last 12 hours of His life that traditionally defines His "Passion." Given the expanded context, these local offerings are probably better evangelistic vehicles than the movie. My hope is that they'll prove to be an extension, a valuable adjunct to the film.

Now that I'm seeing the actual production, albeit in a pretty disjointed and rough fashion, I'm even more convinced that we're talking apples and oranges. So, I offer the following list: "Ways in which our 'Passion Play' differs from 'The Passion of the Christ'"

  1. Our production endeavors to present the entire Gospel, and doesn't focus on the crucifixion. In that regard, this is not truly a "passion play," but we use that term for lack of a better description. (In the beginning, years ago, we called it an "Easter Pageant," but that has misleading connotations.)

    Don't get me wrong; the crucifixion is a key part of the presentation, and it's presented in a fairly straightforward and even graphic manner. But the life and ministry of Jesus is given top billing, and His resurrection is the true climax.

  2. Our production is evangelistic in focus. Our main goal is to bring people to an understanding of how they can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ; providing a worship experience for believers is important but secondary. I'm still convinced that "The Passion of the Christ" is primarily edifying to the believer.

  3. We don't introduce any extra-Biblical characters, at least not in scenes with Scriptural context (more about that in a second). We push the edge a bit by giving names to a few Biblical characters who go unnamed in the actual Gospel accounts, and allow them to give voice to the impact Jesus made on their lives (these include a shepherd who was present at the announcement of Jesus' birth, the leper cured by Jesus who returned to thank Him, and a woman who was cured from an 18-year-long sickness. I'll let you find those Scriptural references on your own; they're there...trust me!).

    This "artistic license" gets back to our underlying goal: bringing people to Jesus. How do you best do that? By telling about your firsthand experience with the Lord. There's no more powerful witness than saying, "here's how Jesus has changed my life." So, we let these characters provide that witness.

  4. Our production prominently features a pumpjack. See, the storyline alternates between a contemporary setting, focused on an oilfield worker who's learning about the true meaning of Easter, and an historical setting in which Jesus lives, teaches, ministers, dies and defeats death. So, while we do have non-Biblical characters, they're not used in a Scriptural setting.

  5. Satan doesn't make an appearance in our presentation. A few years ago, Satan was a character in the script. He was played in an over-the-top fashion, complete with long black cape, and he scared some of the younger kids. So, he hasn't been invited to return.

  6. You can get a [non-pirated] DVD of our presentation shortly after Easter! Yep...we're now taking pre-orders, and the DVD will include extras like program commentary, behind-the-scenes montage, outtakes (?!), trailer and casting calls. Don't ask me why. We apparently have the technical wherewithal to do it, and so we are.

There are many other differences between most locally-produced Easter presentations and the film. They are intended for different purposes and different audiences. Seeing one should not affect whether you see the other. In both cases, however, the hope is that you'll see God more clearly, love Him more dearly and follow Him more nearly.

Comments

My church in New Hampshire did a sort of Passion Play one year for the traditional Maundy Thursday service. Our productions (for lack of a better term) were always a blend of drama and music. My favorite version was an alternating of a drama one act with a contemporary song that followed that tied it and the next drama act. It was amazing how well they pieced together the events from the Last Supper to the Crucifixion with songs. The drama was completely separate from the songs - this was not a musical play. Rather the drama team acted out their scene and a separate soloist or duet or trio or other ensemble would sing the appropriate song from a completely different place in the room. It was haunting.

Posted by: jen at March 17, 2004 01:23 PM

Jen, it sounds wonderful. That's the blessing of the local Church: much creativity and many gifts are manifest in numerous different ways of telling the Gospel.

Posted by: Eric at March 17, 2004 01:58 PM

"There's no more powerful witness than saying, 'here's how Jesus has changed my life.' So, we let these characters provide that witness."

Definitely! That's very asute! From a promotional perspective (i.e. evangelism), customer testimonials are a powerful force. Granted, the people who experienced the power of Jesus first-hand weren't "customers" but if the goal is to promote a belief, or a faith to the undecided, the analogy still holds.

Gibson takes a different approach, trying to focus almost entirely on the enormity of Jesus' sacrifice. Many reviewers raised just the point you did. Gibson's vision didn't focus on Jesus' message, just his dying.

Then again, I question the motivation behind their observations. The same loud voices who were bitterly denouncing a film they hadn't seen for its "anti-Semitism" are the same bunch complaining the film didn't focus on Jesus' ministry (and if it did, you can bet they'd be the first to denounce the film as to "preachy").

Nowadays, they're all reading from the same page that Gibson's film's is too violent. I've never heard a one of them criticize Oliver Stone or Quentin Tarantino for that.

Supposedly, the critics are concerned that the "R" rated violence in Gibson's film is too grapic for younger audiences.

Funny. Those are the same voices strongly encouraging parents to take their underage daughters to go see "Thirteen" specifically because of its graphic "R" rated depiction of teen sex.

Isn't that priceless? Gibson's film might inspire/ encourage "anti-Semitic" hatred and violence but "Thirteen" isn't going inspire/ encourage teenage girls to get their tongue pierced, dress like hookers, and start giving it away to every pimply faced creep in their high school.

I'm bitter. It shows, I know.

Are you going to post pics from the production?

Posted by: Mr. Freen at March 17, 2004 11:27 PM

Then again, I question the motivation behind their observations.

It's clear that there are a lot of personal agendas being brought to play in these reviews, not the least of which is the challenge to the movie-making hierarchy who sees a potential for loss of control. (Almost Biblical, isn't it? See also, Jesus vs. The Pharisees)

Are you going to post pics from the production?

I haven't yet figured out a way to do that, unless I grab screen shots from the post-production DVD. I have been considering it, though.

Posted by: Eric at March 18, 2004 09:02 AM
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]









Remember personal info?