The Jesus War (New Yorker Piece on Mel Gibson, "The Passion")

The New Yorker ^ | September 15, 2003 | Peter J. Boyer

[AnAmericanMother]

Well stated. As a good faithful priest of my acquaintance once said, "That's not our problem. That's God's problem."

Folks need to quit speculating about who's in and who's out and just do their duty.

[Rev. Friend]

I ditto the AMEN. Mel and his cohorts may not have any letters following their name, but I don't remember Jesus nor any of his followers having them either. I guess his academic critics already know that. As I continue to work on my doctorate in Christian Education I find that our intellectual egos can sometimes hinder our faith and often veil us from real truth and knowledge of historical fact.

[hthalljr]

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled The Jesus War (New Yorker Piece on Mel Gibson, "The Passion"), The Iguana wrote:
"Good point."
"Of course, that leaves the question of virtuous folk pre or post-Christ who have never had the chance to hear the Good News..."

It's not enough just to be good. You have to enter into the Covenant, and be born again, of the water and of the spirit (John 3:5). Since the requirement extends to all, it would seem only just that the Lord would provide a way for all to enter into that covenant. He has.

Peter wrote that even the rebellious who perished in the flood of Noah heard the Good News during the time between the Savior's death and resurrection: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison..." (I Peter 3: 18-21)

However, even when a person in the Spirit World accepts the Gospel, he must still be baptized, and baptism must be performed in the flesh, by immersion in water. Paul explained how the Lord solves this dilemma by providing for proxy baptism of the living for the dead: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (I Corinthians 15:20)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims authority from God, through the prophet Elijah (Malachi 4:5-6), to perform this service, and it has undertaken the enormous effort to do it for all, one by one, in its temples. Of course, the ordinance is only effective if the dead person freely accepts it.

For a more detailed account of Christ's ministry to the dead, see

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/138

Tracy Hall
Provo Canyon, Utah

[B-Chan]

Our Lord was a carpenter, and surrounded himself with professional fishermen. While I don't have any evidence either way, I wouldn't be surprised if the Aramaic word for "bullshit" didn't come up occasionally in His presence.

I agree, and I think this point ought to be made more often. Because we love Him, and because we've all seen the same British movies, we Christians expect our Lord to speak in the quiet tones of genteel Home Counties English — as if He were a character from Milne or Tolkien. Becase He is our perfect God, it makes us uncomfortable to think of our Lord doing ordinary human things — having gas, for example, or visiting a latrine — but He did. He was 100% man as well as 100% God, and, like all men, He undoubtedly spoke in the vernacular of his class — the peasant class. And, as anyone who has spent time on a construction site can tell you, that vernacular is generally not something you'd hear in church.

And that's not necessarily sinful. Cussing and cursing are two different things. "Cuss words" — earthy, blunt, plain-language words, generally used to describe bodily functions — are not in and of themselves dirty. "Shit", for example, is just the plain English word for solid biological waste, nothing more. Words like "shit", "piss", and the Anglo-Saxon term for sexual intercourse are not curses; they may be considered rude, vulgar, or obscene depending upon circumstance, but intrinsically evil they ain't. (Each can be used in an evil way, however.) In fact, the word "piss" appears in the King James version of the Bible no less than eight times! (1 Samuel 25:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21, 2 Kings 9:8, 2 Kings 18:27, Isaiah 36:12, for the adolescently curious.)

On the other hand, cursing is a sin. Cursing consists of blasphemy, sacrelige, gross impiety, vain usage of the Lord's Name, and the actual act of cursing someone — in other words, expressing one's hope that they be damned to hell.

Jesus Christ is the King of the Universe, but He is also a Jewish peasant. It is my opinion that as such our Lord did on occasion use what might have been considered salty language. Just as our Lord resorted to physical violence on one occasion (the driving out of the moneychangers from the Temple), so, too, He used strong language when necessary. In Luke 3:2 et al. He called His hypocritical accusers "ye generation of vipers", for example, which must have sounded something like calling them s.o.bs to the ears of the crowd in His day. He also referred to the publicly pious as "whitewashed tombs" {Matt 23:27 et al.] — in other words, as being clean outside, full of filth inside — akin to calling them "full of shit"!

And let's not forget the fact that He was a carpenter. Somehow, I can't picture our Lord saying "Darn it!" or "oh, poop!" afrer smashing His finger with a hammer.

Our Lord is righteous, holy, and perfect, but He is neither effete nor "nice". He was God, but He also liked parties, wine, and hanging out with fishermen. We have had enough of the Nice Jesus, the Eton Jesus, the sanitized-for-your-protection Hollywood Jesus. Let's have the Real Jesus — fully God in His perfection, fully Man in his human nature.

Please keep in mind that I'm barely a Christian, much less a scholar or exegete. I could be totally wrong about this. If so, I humbly ask for your correction, and I apologize if I have offended or caused scandal by posting this message.

[sakic]

Must be a genetic defect.

Who are you referring to?

[sakic]

Do you suppose he is as concerned about anti-German sentiment that might arise from the next holocaust film?

I can understand your concern considering all of the mass slaughters of Germans through the centuries.

[A. Pole]

Gibson and McEveety had been surprised to learn that Fisher's panel was an ad-hoc initiative, bearing no authority from the Church. After the Bishops Conference received the letter from Gibson's lawyer, it acted quickly to distance itself from the scholars and their report on Gibson's film. “Neither the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, nor any other committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, established this group, or authorized, reviewed or approved the report written by its members,” the conference declared in June.

Tricksy, tricksy.

[A. Pole]

Oh, but he's right in saying that salvation is impossible outside the Church.

For God nothing is impossible. The Church is the ark of salvation but some who are inside might still perish and some who are outside might be saved by God's special grace. Those whose faith (the spiritual map) is closer to the truth have better chance to find the destination.

[Tench_Coxe]

"Rabbi Eugene Korn, the head of the A.D.L.'s interfaith affairs, was quoted in the article as warning Gibson that he should not ignore the scholars' group. “If he doesn't respond, the controversy will certainly heat up,” Korn said."

Probably more a revealing statement than any. Has Mafia-like implications between the words ( such as: " We'll be sure to make things hard for you if you don't do as we say. " ).

[xp38]

I don't know what British movies you have seen about Christ because I haven't seen many. I think what you may be refering to is the use of many British actors by Hollywood in the past. Old Hollywood thought english accents added class to a picture. If you want to see a shouting non genteel Christ I recommend Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew. Pasolini was from what I have read a homosexual communist so it just goes to show the gospel can come from some unlikely sources. The current in release Gospel of John (which I highly recommend) was produced Garth Drabinsky who is jewish so there is another example.

[jude24]

So you have on the one side a Catholic "traditionalist" who, if you buy into the stereotype, would normally consider Evangelicals a bunch of heretics, while on the other side you have Evangelicals, who, if you buy into the stereotype, would normally refer to the Roman Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon, and both sides are coming together because both sides think this is a very faithful movie. Ain't that great?

I don't know... When I was talking with my friends at church yesterday, it looked as though I'd be the only young guy to go see that movie. The objection some had was the Aramaic thing -- they weren't going to see a subtitled movie. Oh, well.

More disturbing was the second reason -- that it was made by Gibson, a Catholic, and "would mis-represent the Gospels," indicitive of a denominational distrust of all things Catholic.

Oh well. What do I expect from a church where it is more than occasionally taught that Rome is the Whore of Babylon?

[jude24]

Vatican II taught correctly and clearly on this issue, and what they taught is the traditional doctrine of the Church.

For us uninformed (or misinformed) Protestants, what might that traditional doctrine of the Church be? Cites are good, if possible.

[Taliesan]

Sanders believes it is because of Jesus' actions at the Temple during his Passover visit to Jerusalem, when he drove the money changers from the premises and overturned their tables. Fredriksen, though she is an admirer of Sanders, believes that the Temple scene probably didn't happen. She places the initiative of the Crucifixion entirely upon Pilate, almost to the point of absenting Jews from the scene altogether. Fredriksen's theory is that Jesus was so popular among the Jewish people (as evidenced by his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the day Christians call Palm Sunday) that Pilate wanted him dead in order to teach Jews a lesson: Do not rebel.

I present to you the "experts", who, after two centuries of enlightenment, and after informing us that the gospels weren't written by the men whose names they bear, will now tell us what was originally in them.

As soon as they can figure it out.

Note that Frederickson thinks the Temple scene "probably didn't happen". Based on what evidence, you ask?

Well, it doesn't comport with HER IDEA of what did happen. Where did she get that idea, you ask?

Other parts of the gospels, which she likes better.

[AAABEST]

...both sides are coming together because both sides think this is a very faithful movie. Ain't that great?

It's absolutely glorious and must go way beyond just this movie.

I notice that your posts are often given to softening interdenominational tensions. God will bless you.

[Oberon]

The references to ripping out the guys intestines and killing his dog is a bit much also.

Mr. Gibson was accurately reporting his emotions at the time...that was how he felt. If a Christian tells you he never feels negative emotions or urges, he's lying to you.

What is offputting is the graphic detail of Gibson's expression; but what's wrong with that? It may be shocking, but that primarily for its honesty.

[wimpycat]

God will bless you.

I sure hope so. :-) I fail on so many levels to do what we all ought to do, but I don't think I'm so bad off that I can't manage to do this tiny thing.

[Oisín]

Post 57 & 58 are a good start. Aestus Veritatis has good references and DallasMike has some good links. Obviously, the two doctrines conflict. Whoa....I just realized today's date...good luck if your still around here...

[Oisín]

As someone brought up Protestant myslef, I defenitely think Mr. Gibson has a right to his belief, and when you consider what that is, it does have a logical, reasonable arguement. DallasMike -- I've seen alot of interviews of him for his movies and he would be a BLAST! to talk to or hang out with. As far as his realationship to his wife, that's between themselve's and God. The fact that he is still with her suggests that he is not so close-minded, able to marry outside his faith, unlike other dogmatic, intramerital, religious doctrines. His comment about her being a saint, " better than him " credits his sentiment to his beliefs and that her not believing his beliefs troubles him and is probably perpetually on his mind. Yet they work it out. How much more opened-mindedness could you ask for?

[SolaGratia]

To: Campion
Oh, but he's right in saying that salvation is impossible outside the Church. He's only wrong in assuming he (Mel) knows who's outside the Church and who's inside. :-) Only He (God) knows that for sure.>>>>

Yes, he is right when he says that salvation is impossible outside the church. The problem is Mel does not know what the "Church" is. He thinks it is the Roman Catholic church. It is not. The church is made up of the body of Christ. Those that believe we are saved by Grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. The Catholic church does not teach this so therefor the Roman Catholic that follows the teaching of pre Vatican 11 or post Vatican 11 teaching do not have salvation. This movie may do some good, I don't know. But I would say that most that see it have already heard the Gospel and you can not be saved by emotion. And if they make a commitment because of the movie and do not receive Christ as the only sacrifice for salvation and add the dogmas of the Roman church in addition then it is to no avail.

[Oisín]

"The Catholic church does not teach this so therefor the Roman Catholic that follows the teaching of pre Vatican 11 or post Vatican 11 teaching do not have salvation."

Not at all! Catholics are still considered within "the body of Christ." Most Protestants accept this even. They just don't believe that you need the chain of command to God, i.e. priest...bishop...Pope. Other minimal differences as well, but the "body" is anyone who believes Jesus as savior and follows His example. This includes Catholosism.