The Passion of the Christ- Then and Now (Good Remarks)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Isaiah Flair

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some critics have used their reviews of The Passion of the Christ to basically miscast every aspect of Christianity as an incitement to violence. They have impugned the very Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and insist that Christians expunge these sacred texts of anything politically incorrect.

These calls, while appallingly prevalent, are just an attack on Christianity. Christians are completely opposed to any kind of violence against others on the basis of religion. Christians by definition believe that everyone should find their way to the Father through the Son, and recognize that an embrace of Christian morality (like being pro-life) is a requisite part and parcel of doing so.

Christians are the first to help the less fortunate, the poor and troubled. In ways, Christianity is the epitome of the loving Father who welcomes His children with high standards and open arms, each fortifying the promise of the other. In this light, Christianity being a patriarchal religion is a good thing. As such, it is also the foundation upon which the greatness of Western Civilization was built.

With that as a given, it is critical to note that we are designed to define things in contrast. From the beginning of our lives, we integrate schema of what we are versus what we are not, and of what we should do versus what we should not do.

Two religions, particularly where one definitively rejects the foundation of the other, can be defined each in contrast to the other without there being any legitimacy to the idea that theological incompatibility and acknowledgement of the same equals violence. It does not, and it is time to expose the false claim that it somehow would.

Reviews of The Passion of the Christ which have decried the incredibly visceral scourgings as “too graphic” are ironic in the face of un-criticized horror films which are much more graphic and which are produced by Hollywood en masse each year. Those reviewers tend to be moral relativists who have a hard time with anything that smacks of the moral strength they so pitiably lack.

The same people object to images of pre-born babies who were dismembered alive (until dead) by the violent act that is abortion...truth can be a hard thing to face for those who advocate evil. Evil isn't exactly attractive, stripped of its cloak of politically correct rhetoric.

With The Passion, some are saying that the impact of the blows, or the viscerality of the scourging, should have been downplayed. Why, when that was what really happened?

Moreover, to understand the magnitude of the voluntary sacrifice made by The Man, it is critical to witness what happened to him. Crucifixion was no day at the beach; I believe the term is related to our word “excruciating”, meaning incalculably painful. And the magnitude of His sacrifice is at most a modest measure of the pure love for humankind that motivated it.

Most Christians who saw the film got that, hopefully most who read the Gospels got it too, as He hoped they would.

In ways, I see The Passion of 2000 years ago as a way of communicating the depth of love the Savior had, and has, for those offered salvation. As a communication, its effect has been profound, as many of the two billion Christians on Earth today and those of the centuries that came before can attest.

The Passion of the Christ, as a film, is an amazing vehicle to further that communication in a cynical age.

While I have doubts about the Satan role, the suicide of Judas scene, and a few special effects shots, the fact remains that the core of the movie is about a very visceral witnessing to the experience of Jesus from Gethsemane to Golgotha, from the garden to the cross.

This viscerality has amazing impact as anyone who has watched The Passion of the Christ in a theatre can attest.

It has the power to engage audiences as truth looks them in the eye, and asks them who they are when they look back, and with what emotions they will view the world thereafter.

I saw the movie, and was stunned, with one question echoing throughout all the world, in and around.

A film review by a columnist at the Miami Herald (my local paper) led me to send her the following e-mail. She replied very nicely that her e-mail had been BURIED by similar mail in response to her column. She had complained that her Jewish hubby and she didn't like the Prince of Peace being portrayed in a movie so full of violence and gore. She is herself, a Roman Catholic. I sent her this:

I read your article on the movie with interest and then I saw the movie this afternoon, with my wife. The reason Christ walked as a man was to die for our sins. It wasn't to live an exemplary life (although he did) and it wasn't to preach of inclusionary love (which he never did). That which he suffered was meant for US. Every bloody stripe is meant for us, and he took the collective sins of humanity upon his shoulders. In your article in the Herald, you objected to the violence and gore.

Just how MANY bloody stripes do you think should account for the sins of the WORLD?

The alternative is that WE deserve eternal damnation in the sea of fire. Hell is a real place and is well described in the Bible and a lot of folks are going there. Liberals hate to think about that, I dunno why. You mentioned his teachings as being inclusive. Well, only if a person agreed to turn from his sin and embrace Jesus as Lord. Remember what he said in the film? "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes unto the Father but by Me." Unless you follow that very narrow road, you're destined to wind up in a very hot place. The Gospels are pretty clear about this.

I don't know about you, but I see a lot of folks in the world not exactly embracing this truth. I see sin politicized and couched as being OK in a PC world where anybody can do anything EXCEPT be intolerant. When Christ returns, he's not coming as the "Christ Child" born in a manger and who died like a sacrificial lamb. He's coming to JUDGE and he's going to be mighty angry. Personally, I don't think he's a liberal. Do you?

What did you make of the demonic presence in the film? Did you notice the reality of Satan? He was that weird, sort of androgynous looking guy in the hood and cloak. When Jesus died on the cross, did you notice his screams of ANGER? He knew that the scales had been rebalanced by God the Father and made perfect in the sacrifice of the Lamb. He was defeated and he was going to have to capture souls the old fashioned way, one at a time. He will be successful at this. I see him at work everywhere I look, especially in the liberalism that infects the media today. There are two converging agendas at work, here: Satan's and God's. Do you think it is a coincidence that the man in charge of "scoring" the film reports demonic interference with his work? Look at the forces arrayed for and against this "mere" movie. After all, it is only a movie, right?

I can't say I enjoyed this movie. But it affected me to the very core of my being. One thing is certain, I did not leave that "mere" movie hating Jews. Anybody that does was a bigot before they entered. The Jews did not scourge the body of the Christ, it was Roman soldiers. It was Roman soldiers who rammed a spear into his side and Roman soldiers who gambled for his robes as he hung from the cross. I didn't leave wanting to go beat up a Roman soldier, either.

I just think that after reading your article, neither you or your husband quite "got" it. I think the theatre full of folks I saw it with did, however. There was a dead lingering silence as the credits rolled then thunderous applause.
Amen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.