by Pastor Doug Kings
This is the second in my series of Reflections on the contemporary problems and possibilities of the Holy Week and Easter stories and traditions.
ELCA Texas bishop Michael Rinehart wrote in a blog post sometime ago that he had been seeing a trend of returning the Sunday before Easter to Palm Sunday rather that Passion Sunday. Thus the day’s focus would go back to being primarily on Jesus’ dramatic entrance into Jerusalem. The Passion story then would be reserved exclusively for Good Friday.
Rinehart was also right in saying that changing Palm to Passion Sunday occurred after attendance at Good Friday services had declined significantly. Growing up I only remember Palm Sunday but by the time I got to seminary the transition to Passion Sunday was well established.
I embraced the change in my first congregation (to the dismay of the senior pastor I worked with). I especially enjoyed the dramatic reading in parts (like a play) of the full Passion Gospel. The high point (for lack of a better term) was always the moment when the congregation (taking the role of the crowd) shouted out, “Crucify him!” in response to Pilate’s offer of mercy.
Well, that was then. As the years have passed, my enthusiasm for all that has disappeared. I can still appreciate the drama, but I have found myself asking, “What’s the point?” Not just liturgically, but also what is the point of the story?
A turning point came for me in another a congregation, where we had a lay parish assistant who I respected a great deal. She surprised me when she said she wouldn’t be at the Good Friday service (she attended nearly everything). “The story is just too sad,” she said. This from someone who could have explained Luther’s theology of the cross as well as many pastors. For her, however, the Passion story itself was just too much.
As I wrote last week, modern biblical scholarship has challenged the traditional understanding of the events surrounding Jesus’ death. We just don’t know much about what happened. We do know, however, that a lot of what the gospels’ passion narratives say is unlikely and sometimes preposterous. In many places the gospel accounts contradict each other.
We now know that none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. (Mark, the earliest gospel, was written at least forty years after Jesus’ death.) Did they have eyewitnesses as sources? Almost certainly not. And what’s hard for us to understand is that they probably didn’t care. Telling the “good news” about Jesus was their priority rather than historical accuracy, which is our modern concern.
Instead, much of the detail in the gospels’ stories of Jesus’ last week was inspired by the Old Testament. Thus, rather than biblical prophecy fulfilled by the events of Holy Week, this scripture was the inspiration for the gospel writers’ Passion stories. They created a narrative which conveyed the meaning and importance of Jesus’ death rather than its history, which probably no one knew.
The question for us is whether the meaning and importance they saw (and the gospels themselves have differing views on that) is what we would now see or value. To me, there are at least two major problems for us today and both contribute to the overwrought nature of the gospels’ telling of the Passion story.
The first is the anti-Judaism present to some degree in each of the gospels, and especially in the Passion stories. This problem has been recognized for a long time. Since the Holocaust, various attempts have been made to remedy it, though none have really been satisfactory.
Biblical scholarship has cast doubt on what role (if any) Jewish religiousauthorities would have had in Jesus’ death. Even the gospels strain to come up with a plausible connection, primarily because their own accounts of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee give them little to work with. It is much more likely that Jesus was executed by Roman authorities because he did something which they considered a threat to public order. The table-turning incident in the temple is one possibility.
So why the hostility to Judaism in the gospels? Because they were written at the time of the split between church and synagogue. Divorces can be angry, messy affairs and this one certainly was. That most Jews did not embrace Jesus as the Christ became an awkward embarrassment for the early church. If Jesus really was the Jewish messiah, then why did most Jews not accept him? Thus, began the meme of the messiah’s rejection by his own people, portrayed most dramatically in Jesus’ Jerusalem trial.
The second problem is the theological interpretation of Jesus’ death. Again, the gospels have somewhat differing views on this (as does Paul). Yet they all agree that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice for humanity’s sin like the animal sacrifices made in the temple. Today I’m not sure this is even understandable. More importantly, it makes God appear as an ancient bloodthirsty ogre. While some fundamentalists still revel in this image, most people find it bizarre and repulsive.
The obvious rebuttal to that portrayal is Jesus himself. This supposed divine need for justice and judgment that sent Jesus to the cross is noticeably absent in Jesus’ own teaching. Forgiveness and compassion are the heart of his life and ministry.
As this has been rediscovered in recent years, Jesus’ death has been reframed as the ultimate expression of that compassion and selflessness. Jesus’ death is saving for us by inspiring us to the life of love that is our human calling. Jesus did not die “for our sins” but, like so much suffering, because of sin. God is not “satisfied” by Jesus’ death but heartbroken.
Can the gospels’ Passion narratives be saved? The disinterest in Good Friday and the resistance to imposing the Passion on Palm Sunday are strong indications of how even average Christians feel. We need to pay attention. The symbol of the cross is certainly important and powerful and should not be lost. Ironically, however, the stories that have swirled around it for centuries are now preventing us from seeing it.
Blessings in your life and ministry.