I’ve read a very great deal about Gibson’s
Passion from very perspectives. It occurred to me in
church yesterday what the fundamental problem with it is: it is not
Christ’s suffering and death which save us, but His Resurrection.
That is why, even in the West, we Christians celebrate Easter, Pascha,
the Feast of the Resurrection, not a theoretical feast of the
crucifixion.
I then realised a problem with the Western theory of
salvation-through-passion (albeit not the fundamental problem): it
focuses on what was done to Christ, not on what Christ
did. It’s a passive, feminine account of Salvation. It
discounts Christ’s actions. He suffered, yes; He died,
yes—and then He descended into Hell and harrowed it, freeing those
who were bound there: trampling down death by death, and upon those
in the tombs bestowing life,
as the hymn puts it. It is not by
passivity but by action that Christ saved us.
I think that it’s also related to the Western love of inflexion
points. Just as in the West there has to be an instant at which the
bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, so too there must be
a single instant at which salvation is achieved. But that’s just
not the way it is. The entire Liturgy is the process of changing the
gifts into the Eucharist—and so to Christ’s entire life is
part of the process of salvation. His incarnation as a man; His birth;
His growing-up; His ministry; His suffering; His death; His
resurrection; His ascension—all these are important.
It’s not any one thing: it’s that God eternal became man
and was born like we were, died like we do and rose like we will.
This obsession with one particular point in salvific history is
unhealthy. It’s something like interpreting all of American
history through the prism of 18th century settlements in Tennessee.