The Mel Syndrome (the re-popularization of Christianity through his movie “The Passion Of The Christ”) has stirred the pot of religion in the U.S. some more, just what we need. Christian groups buying blocks of tickets have helped make the movie a blockbuster, and this commercial success has made people more curious to see the movie, since nothing loves money like money. Groups have come out of the woodwork with their own reactions and agendas, to help push the movie over the edge into a fullblown cultural phenomenon. Of course the media, having misjudged the momentum of Mel’s project, are now leaping onto the bandwagon and doing all kinds of tertiary infotainment bits, including stories on Passion paraphernalia sales, related books and movies, etc. Yeesh.

Two themes occur to me, what I will call 1) The Irony Factor, and 2) The History Axiom. Both have to do with contradictions (not to say overt hypocrisy) arising from trying to put religious ideas into practice. The Irony Factor has to do with our subjective reaction to these contradictions, while the History Axiom of course deals with the more general historical perspective. The Irony Factor can be picked at ad nauseam, since there are so many levels and details to examine, but I’ll just touch on two of the most current issues.

Foremost for me is the fact that the West is at war in the East (I use this general term to include all countries with historically strong muslim traditions, from eastern Europe to Indonesia), ostensibly for political reasons, though most people recognize the underlying economic motives (oil). The one thing the West doesn’t want is to appear to be waging war for religious reasons, in other words a modern Crusade, to follow up on our previous historical incursions into the region. This is exactly how religious leaders in the East portray Western aggression, calling westerners “Crusaders”, which reduces our motives to one ideological imperative, the triumph of Christianity over Islam. In this context, the Mel Syndrome certainly does little to assuage the fears of muslims in the East. The Irony Factor here is that the christian lovefest surrounding Mel’s movie will do more to heighten christian-muslim tensions than to spread any sort of religious tolerance and enlightenment. Every kitschy nail necklace sold is another nail in the coffin of world peace, or so it seems to me. I’d love to be proved wrong.

The other main ironic moment that strikes me here is the showbiz glitz surrounding Mel’s movie and its ripple effect. Christians usually rationalize their dogma by saying the main issue is Christ’s message, the golden rule, love thy neighbor, etc. This is the message for the nations, the purpose of christian evangelism, the hope for a world in which all people can live together in peace. That other thing about resurrection, salvation, everlasting life and living it up in heaven, is a bit more complicated, since it tends to divide the heaven-bound believers from the hell-bound non-believers, which does little to advance the golden rule concept. Now my only problem with the golden rule shtick, and I think I’m not alone here, is that you don’t need a fullblown religion with attendant church bureaucracy to advance the notion of being nice to one another. I got that from “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” which was a fairly low-budget project itself. “Be excellent to each other” was the message, pithy and to the point.

The ritual and pageantry surrounding Christianity has historically been about galvanizing and solidifying the political and economic power of the church, wowing the peasants with Wizard of Oz man-behind-the-curtain stuff. Gold-trimmed mitres, huge cathedrals, incomprehensible latin liturgies, it’s all showbiz. The fact that religious leaders are always quick to use new technology to enhance the showbiz glamour makes me think that they are more concerned with hypnotizing the masses than advancing the golden rule. New technology that might help humanity is treated with suspicion, blasphemous, but once it can be put to a religious use, it is A-OK.

Religious leaders treat new technology, new ideas, as a threat to their organizations, unless the technology can be put to a religious purpose. Modern cinema is no exception: R-rated sex is bad because it tempts our animal natures; R-rated violence is good because it feeds our religious fervor. Creativity, innovation, inspiration, these things have historically been mediated by religious leaders, who tell us what is the appropriate way to “exalt god.” Exalting god in your actions is supposed to make the world a better place. That’s the religious logic anyway. If you let god speak through your actions you will do good things, rather than act out your petty, animalistic desires. But the lasting value of these actions lies in the effort, the practical wisdom, the attention to detail, rather than the ideological hoopla. Good work transcends the definitions of secular or sacred.

If all religious art was notable because of its religious content, technique would be less important than theme. But our museums are filled with religious art, our cities are dotted with religious architecture, our libraries are plenished with religious literature because of the technique and talent that went into creating these works. This is how Mel’s movie should be judged, and is being judged. Critics examine it on the basis of acting, directing, cinematography, screenplay, and on this level there is an interesting debate. On the level of religious and media hype, the movie is less interesting, just another tool for money-grubbing opportunists and evangelists. On the level of art, the movie can be compared to other religiously inspired works of art: What does it give to humanity, what does it add to our lives? To me this is in keeping with the idea of the golden rule. The irony here is that while Mel wanted to give people a way to experience the Passion more fully, to sensitize us to suffering, and through this (I imagine) make us more empathetic and loving, he may have helped stoke the fires of religious intolerance, cultural hubris and aggression. Tsk, tsk.

These were the main points of irony that struck me. As far as the History Axiom (“those who do not study history are destined to repeat it”), my thinking runs like this: What, historically speaking, has been the purpose of religion? Is it to stave off fear of pain and death by organizing people to various ideologies? Is it to control human population growth through cyclical religious wars? Obviously it organizes people into larger groups, but to what purpose? Well, all religions seem to share at least one goal, which is to bring their practitioners closer to their deities. Whether the deities reside in the world (animism), have their own society in a parallel realm (polytheism), or encompass our universe in an omniscient presence (monotheism), us mortal humans want to cozy up to the immortal campfire. Hence, religious devotion and ritual.

Through our religious actions, whether prayers, rituals or wholesale slaughter of non-believers, we feel that we draw closer to god (I’ll just say “god” for want of a more accurate term). God is the source of all things and we want to get close to the source. Why? Abstract thinkers talk of telos, of searching for our purpose, the reason for our existence. Most of us, however, know that you only wonder why you were put here when things aren’t going well, when you’re sick, hungry, cold, lonely, and somebody with more power than you is poking you with a sharp stick. When everything is hunky dory, your belly is full, your feet are warm, and you’re getting plenty of loving, you don’t worry about the reason for existence, you’re just happy to be on the team. For the vast majority of humanity then, god is manifest in the basics of human survival, health, food, shelter, a full body massage, etc. For all these things we give thanks.

On this practical level I have no problem with any religion. If your religious belief motivates you to make life better for yourself and others, grow crops, make cheese (or even better, Belgian ale!), weave clothes, heal the sick, and so forth, then praise be. That is good golden rule, salt of the earth stuff. This is where religion falls under the “judge them not by their words but by their deeds” heading.

Unfortunately these things are largely footnotes in the history of religion. The main story is one of conquest, empire, and reaction against social progress. For every religious scholar who argues that religion is a progressive force, helping humanity to advance, there are two scholars who argue that humanity has advanced in spite of rather than because of religion. I don’t really want to get into that debate, except to argue that humanity should advance. When religious leaders and organizations play a reactionary role, trying to impede the advancement of humanity, they run up against the History Axiom. Allow me to explicate.

To me, advancing humanity means solving our problems of everyday physical existence, so that we can get on with asking larger questions (those telos questions of purpose). We haven’t even gotten to that point yet. If god is manifest in the basics of human survival, if being close to god means helping each other to survive, easing each other’s wants and suffering, we are still in the introduction of the story of humanity; we haven’t even made it to page one. Like religious art, religious social activism should be judged on the details, the practical wisdom, how it advances humanity. Many social benefactors, inventors, businessmen, teachers, draw inspiration from their religious beliefs, but we judge them by deeds not their words. Many social benefactors express no religious beliefs, they may find religion irrelevant, or worse, malevolent. But their deeds are as close to god as any others, in that they advance humanity.

The real problem occurs when religious activism goes beyond making cheese and ale to social planning. Most religious leaders will tell you that separation of church and state is a good thing, and yet their deeds belie their words. They are more than ready to jump in on tough issues of social planning (capital punishment, family planning, censorship, education, etc.). What guides their vision? Is it practical wisdom, ways to alleviate poverty, hunger, disease, war? No, they prefer to speak for god on the larger questions, basing their arguments not on a careful study of their own historical achievements and errors, but on time-honored (and time-worn) dogma. And here is where my rambling ravings lead back to the Mel Syndrome. What has Mel given us? An ideological rehash, tarted up with the most modern technological innovations in cinema magic (knowledge gleaned no doubt from his blood & guts action movies).

Mel, who has catapulted himself into the role of spokesperson for Christianity, could have shouldered the burden of re-examining the history he sought to depict. There is a wealth of theological scholarship that connects Christianity with contemporary social concerns. New studies of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the role of women in early Christianity, to name just one issue. But no, Mel and his cheerleaders didn’t want to go that deep. So the business of Christianity gets a lift (bible sales are up 50%! Those nail necklaces are flying off the shelves!) but humanity gets kicked back a few squares on the cosmic boardgame.

Well, there is one consoling aspect of the History Axiom. As we spiral down into a modern day Crusade, many people are being forced for the first time to see how large a portion of humanity practices Islam. As Western nations become further entangled in the East, the citizens of these nations are starting to study the history of these countries we are invading. Maybe that’s a first step out of the vicious circle we’re in.