[Warning: Spoilers about a very intense Season 3 House of Cards scene, and broader HOC spoilers, below.]
Photo of Kevin Spacey by Sarah Ackerman, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
What does Frank Underwood believe about Jesus? As Underwood, Kevin Spacey masterfully plays the House of Cards protagonist, a character with moral abandon seldom seen on the small or large screen. In season 3, just released by Netflix, now-President Underwood is not showing any signs of slowing down. He (literally) urinates on the memory of his ancestors to open the season, and an episode 4 ethical dilemma finds him talking ethics with a Bishop late one night in a church. Spacey’s Underwood is so skillfully sleezy that we almost believe him when he tells the good Bishop he wants a few moments alone to pray.
C’mon, do you really think Frank is going to pray to anyone but himself? (To be fair, he has conversed with Satan on screen as well.) Of course not. He stares up a crucifix, shares a few critical words with Jesus, and then spits upon it – a treatment not unlike what the real Jesus endured on the cross, actually. As you can imagine, this scene shocked audiences. Much has been made of this scene, but the broader implications of his conversation with and about the Son of God has been largely ignored. Here’s a snippet, edited down to the relevant statements:
Underwood: “I understand the Old Testament God, whose power is absolute, who rules through fear, but…him?” [points to crucifix]
Bishop: “There’s no such thing as absolute power for us, except on the receiving end….Two rules: Love God. Love each other. Period. You weren’t chosen, Mr. President. Only he [Jesus] was.”
(Frank asks for alone time to pray.)
Underwood – looking up at crucifix: “Love? That’s what you’re selling. Well, I don’t buy it.” [Spits]
Frank, without knowing it, has just made a theological argument for a very old Christian heresy. Notice the strong division between the “Old Testament God” and Jesus. For Underwood, the OT deity is a being of power and intimidation, and, while he doesn’t elaborate, his attitude towards Jesus on the cross indicates he understands the discontinuity: this Jesus wields power very differently than does the fictional President. This bifurcation between the Old and New Testaments, even to the point of asserting the centrality of different deities to each, is called Marcionism. The definition from Theopedia is helpful:
“Marcionism was an early heresy led by Marcion, who proposed the first canon of Christian texts. The proposed canon consisted of the Gospel of Luke and several of Paul’s epistles; however, Marcion edited the writings by deleting any references that appeared to approve of the Old Testament and the creator God of the Jews. Marcionism thus rejected the Old Testament God, claiming that Jesus represented the true sovereign God who was different from the God of the Hebrew people.”
Underwood expresses a sentiment that is still not uncommon today, though typically less developed than Marcion’s own views. Here in the Bible Belt, you even occasionally drive by churches that advertise themselves as “New Testament Christians,” whatever the hell that means.
It’s no surprise that Frank’s gospel is a false one, a heresy (to be fair, he’s kind of an inverse Marcionite, since he identifies with the “Old Testament Deity” that Marcion rejected). What is a surprise, a problem even now, is how easily we still buy into Marcion’s lie today. Make no mistake: the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament both contain the revelation of the one God’s gracious activity towards us, God’s creatures. Where Marcion posited radical discontinuity, the orthodox position has always on a strong connection between the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. There is a beauty to the canon, which is no surprise if you believe (as Christians do) that the 66 books of our Bible represent a beautiful library in which everywhere God is revealed in loving self-disclosure.
The life and witness of Jesus makes no sense without an appreciation of the Old Testament narrative. There is no understanding Jesus and his mission apart from his role as Israel’s Messiah, fulfilling the promise to Abraham to “bless many nations” as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. This same Jesus is sent by and begotten of the Father and united with the Spirit, one God in Triunity, who (Christians believe) is none other than the God confessed still by Jews in the Shema: “Hear O Israel, your God is one.”
Two Testaments. One God. Frank Underwood is a very effective politician, but as a theologian he is a pure heretic.
An icon of the Holy Trinity, based on the famed Rublev Icon.
The good news is that God’s loving action is revealed in both Testaments, which tell the story of a God radically committed to His creation. So committed, in fact, that God abdicated all God’s power and, in Christ, subjected Himself to the totality of wrath, sin, evil, and abandonment that vexes humanity, and submitted to death on our behalf. In submitting to death, it was conquered, and we were healed.
To Frank Underwood, and to us, the cross is and always remains a scandal. After all, a God of power is comprehensible, recognizable on the world’s terms. But what earthly ruler – a Nietzschean like Underwood, a Caesar, or a Putin – would dare endorse the seeming naiveté of a God who gives up power out of selfless, other-regarding love for ungrateful creatures who will ultimately put God to death rather than submit to His Kingdom of love and mercy?
Thus St. Paul said to the Corinthians,
“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are being destroyed. But it is the power of God for those of us who are being saved.” (1 Cor. 1:18, CEB)
At least Underwood is honest enough to know that he cannot conduct his affairs as he does and also worship the God who hangs on a cross. Frank understands the foolishness of the cross. But now the question is to us, followers of the risen Lord. Do we, “who are being saved,” embrace the foolishness that is the cross?
I conclude with the words of Charles Wesley, who captures both the pain and the beauty, the incomprehensibility and the glory of the cross in his excellent hymn:
O Love divine, what has thou done!
The immortal God hath died for me!
The Father’s coeternal Son
bore all my sins upon the tree.
Th’ immortal God for me hath died:
My Lord, my Love, is crucified!