Recently I was exposed to the following youtube video that is a dramatization about the figure of Barabbas to portray an evangelical conversion message. Many of my friends have asked for my take on the work in detail. The video, according to youtube.com is from Caleb & Sol’s debut album “Afloat” and that is was written and spoken by Sol Rexius. The video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toEdT0VEHKI
This video encapsulates many of the things that deeply trouble me with modern Christian worship that attempts to be particularly “relevant.” I am not certain that Caleb & Sol intended this to be used in that context; however, I was directed toward it through a worship experience which was seen to be particularly relevant to a modern world. It is in this context that this critique finds its place.
I. Biblical content
First, the accuracy of the video is exegetically questionable at best. The narrative about Barabbas is nearly completely created rather than being developed from the New Testament. As such, it presents a skewed version of the story to meet its own demands.
The New Testament provides scanty information about Barabbas. He appears in all four Gospels (as the passion story is one of the few elements that is in both the synoptics and the Gospel of John). The Gospel of Mark presents Barabbas as a figure who was taking part in an insurrection and had killed others: “Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection.”[1] The Gospel of Matthew adds that his name was Jesus Barabbas (Jesus being a common name) and that he was a notorious criminal: “Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. Ant that time they had a notorious criminal named Jesus Barabbas.”[2] The Gospel of Luke adds little: “Then they (the crowd) all shouted together, ‘Away with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us!’ (This was a man who had been put in prison for an insurrection that had taken place in the city, and for murder).”[3] The Gospel of John lightens the crimes Barabbas had done by claiming only that he was a bandit: “They shouted in reply, ‘Not this man, but Barabbas!’ Now Barabbas was a bandit.”[4] The texts, if they can be collated, argue that Barabbas was imprisoned for murder and insurrection (with the exception of the Gospel of John). There is no conversation of his sentence, his circumstances, or his future.[5]
The video in question creates a narrative about Barabbas that is both unsubstantiated and unlikely; instead, it creates a picture of the figure to serve its own needs. First, the video’s argument about Barabbas works in a context that Barabbas was sentenced to die. While this could have been the case, nowhere is this stated in the New Testament. The video likely invents this detail in order that it can show the aggressive stakes at hand and creates the one-to-one comparison with Jesus and Barabbas (though this type of comparison even the authors of the video might realize is absurd).
Secondly, the video wants to heighten the drama of the scene by suggesting that not only was Barabbas to be executed the same day and in the same manner as Jesus, but that while he was waiting to be executed, he could hear the crowd outside – perhaps implying that Barabbas would have been one of the thieves on the cross crucified next to Jesus. Not only is this unsubstantiated (we have no idea if Barabbas was even charged, much less that the charge was crucifixion and that the sentence was to be enacted that day) it puts Barabbas in a strange place of introspection that is highly unlikely – though necessary for the emotionalized argument that the video tries to portray.
Third, the video makes an interpretative leap that is simply inaccurate – that Jesus dies in place of Barabbas. Nowhere in the Gospels is it presented that Pilate sentenced Jesus to Barabbas’s crimes. Rather, Pilate sentences Jesus to death due to treason – he considered himself “King of the Jews.” If Jesus had simply taken on the errors of Barabbas in some type of vicarious atonement for Barabbas, the argument of the gospels would be annulled. The Gospel of Mark presents Jesus as the Suffering Servant of God who fulfills the role found in the servant songs of Isaiah on behalf of the community of the world. The Gospel of Luke presents Jesus dying as an innocent martyr who will be an ideal and present among the martyrs to die later in the text (what we call the Book of Acts). The Gospel of John presents Jesus as the Passover lamb being slaughtered in order to die on behalf of the community as a whole. Jesus’s crucifixion will have other uses throughout the New Testament, but all of them have one element in common – the work that Jesus does on the cross is universal. If Jesus had only taken on the charge given to Barabbas, Barabbas would be set free, but the argument of the Gospels would be lost.
The argument that Jesus took on Barabbas’s errors probably was developed based on a reading of Romans 1-4 that are often considered the “Judicial model of salvation” – the idea that humans have sinned greatly and therefore deserve to be punished according to their sins. Jesus, then takes on the penalty of the sins himself, satisfies the punishment in his death, thereby atoning for the errors and creating a blank slate before God. Aside from serious questions Pauline scholars have with this interpretation of Paul,[6] nowhere does Paul argue that the actual charge Jesus died from was one of these elements. Rather, Paul, more than any other author, argues that Christ is universal: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ may all become alive.” The author of this video presented this possibly to try and amalgamate the two things into one moment of Jesus’ death on the cross – creating an odd and unsettling message.
II. Emotional appeal
The exegetical problems in this text bother the historical critic of the New Testament, but the presentation and its dependence on aggressive emotional appeal bother even the audience to whom this might be addressed.
The drama surrounding Barabbas depends upon a few key issues. First, it depends upon the idea that Barabbas is set free the moment he thinks he is going to die. The video presents Barabbas’s stomach turning when he hears the keys hit his jail cell. Aside from the poetic license that is taken with the text, the text seems to portray the idea that Jesus saves individuals the exact moment they are going to die. This concept of the “rock bottom” premise before conversion shows naïveté with the majority of followers of Christianity. It expects that people only join religious movements when they are in places of absolute despair – something that would be challenged by many sociologists of religion and the anecdotal experience of many Christians.
In conjunction with this idea that redemption occurs only with the most desperate of people comes the argument that everyone is full of this same guilty conscience. Once the video finishes discussing Barabbas, it moves to the individual and infers that we are in the same place as Barabbas. The text from the video reads:
The Gospel is a message about you – what will you do? Will you examine your wicked heart, persist in blissful ignorance, will you open your mind to the grace of God or disregard your guilty conscience? Surrender life, plans, future, hopes, actions, thoughts to the lordship of Christ or will you continue to deny the total call to your life? Trust Jesus or persist in vain self righteousness, be set free or live in bondage of evil, receive grace or face justice – what will you do, what will you do, what will you do?
The text clearly suggests that each individual has a terribly guilty conscience and is struggling to find the freedom from that overbearing guilt. The language of bondage and punishment are used frequently – clearly meant to suggest that each individual is in the same situation as Barabbas – all are apparently murders, wicked men, sentenced to be crucified. The parallel continues by suggesting that at the moment when we are expecting to die, we will be set free just like Barabbas.
The argument for this “rock bottom” necessity before any true religiosity can occur is naïve at best, offensive at worst. The concept is often coupled with the idea that one can’t intellectually believe something due to the nature of belief. It is an emotional element often described as a “heart thing.” While this might be somewhat accurate, this video (and indeed much of modern protestant worship) seems to suggest that the intellect is not involved at all. If it were truly accurate that the only time people will be satisfied with Christianity is when they have no alternative and feel there is no point to existence, serious question would need to be asked if the religion was of much value or not.
III. Presentation
As much as the previous elements of this video were troubling to me, the presentation of the ideas were more troubling than any (mostly because they get used in more mild forms in many different forms of “contemporary worship”). The strange artistic elements attempting to make this work avant-garde and thereby “relevant” to a demographic that is seeking “authentic Christianity” would be distracted and turned off to the concept.
The flashing screen and echoing presence throughout the video are distracting. The zooming in on particular words while speaking (and then echoing them) clearly are meant to drive home the emotional content of the message. However, if this is necessary, it shows that the message itself is not emotional. The evocations of a sound and light show distract rather than attract readers to the message. More importantly, it is not at all clear that the said show even is successful.
The argument that a presentation like this is more “relevant” to a group in a “post modern” context is simply not true. While I would challenge what the term “post modern” means in this context, the idea of the emerging church movement revolves around existential concepts of authenticity. The general argument is that the church of the 21st century will be one that can be in many shapes – so long as it is authentic. Many members of this emerging church movement have found themselves rather comfortable in traditional worship settings. The litmus test for the relevance of a presentation is not how it would fare at Sundance, rather it is whether it is authentic. Presentations like this one seem contrived. Is this video a person’s convictions? If so, why is it not in a testimony about the person themselves rather than the completely created narrative about a figure who holds 9 total verses in the New Testament (for a corresponding story, consider the view of the Prayer of Jabez in the mind of the emerging church).
The reason this comes off as so contrived – and indeed much of contemporary music – is due to it not having a place in Christian worship. 16th century German hymns that are translated and in many hymn books had a specific use – they were interactive teaching methods. Some might find them dry, but they proclaimed the content of faith that people would then participate in proclaiming and thereby learn something. Much of the liturgy has the same function, but in addition, much of it is direct prayers to God. This type of video is in an awkward in between state. It is clearly not a prayer – it is not seemingly directed to God, but then again, it is not quite directed to the congregation. It is not something that proclaims the gospel (it proclaims often what it sees as not the gospel – the old way of life and the emphasis on turning from that – but it does not present what a Christian life actually is). It is more akin to modern Christian apologetics than anything else – it presents an argument for why one should become a Christian. Just as apologetics are not presented in churches – neither should this be.
Therefore, this video encapsulates much of the critique that I have with modern worship. I do not think it is particularly worse than any other, but it provided me a platform for me to present my views. I mean no special disrespect to the makers of this particular video – I merely saw this as an exaggerated example of much of the concern I have of milder forms of the same done in many protestant churches.
[1] Mk. 15:7
[2] Mt. 27:15-16 (Some manuscripts lack the name Jesus, however the argument for its inclusion is generally strong based on the principle of difficulty. See Horace Abram Rigg, “Barabbas” JBL 64, 4 (Dec. 1945), 417-56.)
[3] Lk. 23:18-19.
[4] Jn. 18:40.
[5] Rather interesting questions can be presented as to the nature of the release of prisoners during the festival. Many scholars question this as a practice and challenge the historicity of the narrative. Rigg even goes so far as to suggest that Barabbas was not a separate character, but since his name was Jesus who was called Barabbas, it is actually Jesus himself. To oppose this view, Robert L. Merritt argues that there was a practice, in the ancient world generally, to release prisoners on certain festivals. The evidence for this is based as much on Greek practice as Roman, but it shows that such could have been possible. For the full discussion see Robert L. Merritt, “Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon” JBL 104, 1 (1985), 57-68.
[6] See the variety of views within the past thirty years in what is called the “New Perspective on Paul.” The view has been challenged by scholars noting that Paul does not have a radical breakthrough (as did Martin Luther) that he felt he could not be absolved of his errors from following the Law (something the video assumes is the experience of Barabbas – and indeed of every human). Paul, however, states the opposite position – that in regard to observation of the Law he was blameless (Phil. 3:6). In Judaism, there were good systems of dealing with personal errors that brought guilt upon the individual. Paul’s main concern is not with these errors people have made, but the cosmic force of the power of Sin in the world (Romans 5-6) that is bigger than any single human and cannot so easily be solved by a simple focus. The video, as with much of Protestantism, focuses on the “judicial model” – what many would call “forensic justification” because it seems easier to them than working with the far more elusive cosmic force of Sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment