Posted on 03/09/2004 6:00:17 AM PST by KriegerGeist
The Passion is Turning Things Upside Down
By Gene Edward Veith
World Magazine
Both sides should realize that if all Jews really were personally responsible for the crucifixion of Christ, then every Christian should love every Jew, since without Christ's death, God's wrath would have fallen on each of us instead.
CBN.com – CHRIST REALLY DOES HAVE A WAY OF TURNING things upside down. Crowds of Christians pour into an R-rated movie, while cultural liberals—who usually say violent entertainment is harmless and art is supposed to be shocking—are warning about too much violence and a movie's baleful effects. An "art house film" in a foreign language with a controversial topic, a cutting-edge style, and an in-your-face aesthetic—a film that could not even find a major studio distributor—has turned into a smash hit.
The Passion of the Christ earned more in one day than any other religious-themed movie in history has made total. It had a bigger opening box office than any movie ever outside of the summer and holiday seasons. "Playing on 4,643 screens at 3,006 theaters, the $30 million production took in a whopping $26,556,573" on opening day, reported Box Office Mojo, a Hollywood trade site, "ironically prompting most in the industry to use the Lord's name in vain out of sheer amazement."
And yet, Hollywood, going against its own business interests, is reportedly set to blacklist Mel Gibson. The New York Times reports that the powers that be in the movie industry—those defenders of artistic freedom who bewail the blacklisting of Hollywood's communists decades ago—are going to punish Mr. Gibson for making this movie.
The Times' Sharon Waxman cites a number of powerful industry leaders who have vowed to have nothing to do with Mr. Gibson. She quotes one head of a studio who would not allow his name to be used: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of."
The article shows that part of the hostility is sheer aversion to religion. A bigger factor is the conviction of many Jews, among them some of Hollywood's biggest players, that the film is anti-Semitic. The controversy has made clear that just as some who call themselves Christians have blamed all Jews, including those who were not alive at the time, and Judaism itself for killing Jesus, there are some Jews who blame all Christians, including those who were not alive at the time, and Christianity itself for the Holocaust.
Both sides should realize that if all Jews really were personally responsible for the crucifixion of Christ, then every Christian should love every Jew, since without Christ's death, God's wrath would have fallen on each of us instead.
But as the controversy grew, worries about anti-Semitism became only one of the complaints against such an explicit rendering of Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection. Newsweek came out with a cover story attacking the Bible itself. The Dallas Morning News trotted out liberal theologians who denied that Christ's death was sacrificial and an atonement for sin. Said a New Testament scholar from Berkeley, "It makes God sound bloodthirsty."
As for the reaction among Christians, many evangelicals considered The Passion of the Christ too Catholic. But if the movie is more Catholic than evangelicals are used to, it is also more evangelical than Catholics are used to. Mel Gibson went on TV to tell about his fall into sin and how, at the pinnacle of his external success, he fell into despair and was near suicide. Then he picked up a Bible and read about how Jesus died for him, which turned his life around.
That is an "evangelical" testimony, not that common among Catholics, especially traditionalist Catholics like Mr. Gibson. For evangelicals, the center of their devotion is the Scriptures, something traditionalist Catholics tended to keep away from the laity, but here Mr. Gibson—defending the truth of the Bible before his inquisitors—follows the text of Scripture in a literal, highly realistic way. And the subtitles proclaim the gospel all the way through—how Christ is bearing our sins and suffering in our place (which means all of the horrors we watch Him endure should have been happening to us).
American Christianity had become superficial, happy-clappy, offering formulas for earthly success rather than the promise of eternal life and a call to radical discipleship. Our evangelism had become reduced to "ask Jesus into your heart," without sometimes even mentioning who Jesus is and what He paid for our salvation. This movie, for all its faults and limitations, has reminded Christians of the magnitude of the cross.
And, in an uncanny way, we are seeing the truth of Scripture demonstrated once again: "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:23-24). [ This about says it all]
You have not misspoken at all. I appreciate that you might want clarification on such a statement. What I am really saying is that the Mary of the Bible is nothing like the Mary of Catholicism which is best described right here: http://www.immaculateheart.com/MaryOnLine/html/cover_story_0.html#
I'm curious to know where you found me offering anything resembling a "blanket condemnation." Sure, I've offered a couple examples of questionable scenes (from questionable sources), and I've mentioned I currently intend to miss it and why, but I never intended to condemn the movie entirely. Quite the contrary, I've repeatedly said I'm happy for those who choose to see it; I'd never be happy for believers who choose to see movies I'd condemned.
I have non-Christian friends who make the same sorts of statements about belief in God, or, (more often), in the whole concept of salvation--the atoning death of Christ that was depicted in the film.
Which "statements" do you mean?
I guess I'm just as guilty of prejudgement, though, since I have yet to see the movie myself.
Well, I appreciate that. However, I would suggest there is a difference between judgment (and/or condemnation) of the film and choosing not to see it for spiritual reasons. It may very well be an epic motion picture worthy of many awards. Better yet, God may use it to bring people closer to Himself. But, I'm thusfar convinced it's not for me.
It seems no one here who's actually seen the movie caught where there was any suggestion of the cross being made in the temple or synagogue to corroborate the allegation I quoted in reply # 12.
Spatzie, since you're planning to see the movie, I'd be very interested to hear whether it contains any such suggestion.
Please also watch for any indication that Mary sees the Satan character.
Those claims came from two different sources; I'd appreciate knowing whether they have any basis.
I still maintain the original verses were penned in Esperanto.
En la komenco Dio kreis la cielon kaj teron...Mia Dio, Hakilo estas en mia kapo.
Seems only reasonable, since Mel Gibson is Australian....
Horse hockey!
You are being misled, Biblewonk, and I am certainly NOT the one doing the misleading.
I'll tell you what I did see - for the first time, I finally understood the gravity and intensity of my Savior's suffering FOR MY SINS. I walked away from the experience re-examining my relationship with Christ, knowing that I had NOT honored Him in my thoughts and deeds, and re-affirming my commitment to Him.
That's what I saw. Where this other "poster" got their crazy ideas from, I don't know.
#2. Do you believe you got more out of this movie than you would if you had been reading the bible daily?
I tend to take everything that the Bible says as literal, and I think we all should.
We know that Jesus often spoke in metaphors, and I think this is one of those areas that could possibly lean in that direction.
I don't feel strongly enough one way or another to really make a case about it.
I agree that it WOULD have added to the drama of the moment to have the rooster crow, and in fact probably everyone was expecting it - which may be why Gibson left it out.
To me that's just another example of his masterful production.
Gibson knew his initial audience would be made up by people with at least a passing familiarity of scripture so maybe he left it to our understanding.
The more I think about the movie, the more I'm blown away by the job he did.
The poster from the other chatboard either made that scene up, because it wasn't in the movie I saw, or didn't understand what they saw.
As to whether I would have gotten more out of the movie if I had been reading the bible daily, I don't think so. I have studied my scripture and pray often. Although I am a woman, and women are traditionally more emotional than men, I tend to react rationally - not emotionally - in my daily living.
On a purely cerebral level, I knew that Christ suffered, was cruficied, died, was buried, descended into hell, and rose again for my sins. I did not understand, fully and completely, on an emotional and spiritual level, how horrendous it was. The movie drew me in, made me stand there, and portrayed, in terrible detail, the magnitude of Christ's physical suffering (while the cerebral part of me nagged about the sins He was paying for that I inflicted on Him).
It's the same as reading about a horrible car accident, witnessing one take place, or actually being in one. You never forget that sickening sound of screeching brakes, or how your body tensed muscles you didn't know you had, or how you slammed into the dashboard, the windsheild, the crunching sound of metal, the mess, the blood, the pain.
Despite the fact that I have had a strong faith in God since I was just a little child, it made all the difference in the world for me. Why? Because I felt like I was there. I surpassed an almost rote awareness of Christ's suffering, to a place of understanding.
And that has made me re-examine my life and my relationship to God.
Not necessarily. He seems to have a follow-up waiting in the wings.
The hypocrisey of Hollywood liberals magnified in living color.
Well, there was Caiphas and the handful of pompous elites of the Sanhedrin, but I did not see them portrayed as being any worse than the Romans who carried out the deed, nor than Herod's court. All of these characters revealed man's capacity for inhumanity and utter depravity and it was irrelevant whether the "men" were Jew or Gentile. It was like every evil that ever touched the human race, before or since, was drawn to and clarified at that point in history, frozen in one moment in time so that the sin of everyone involved seemed exaggerated and distorted. To say that the movie was anti-Semitic is just plain silly. Even Jesus said, "no man takes my life from me...I lay it down willingly."
Apparently they're only opposed to blacklising traitors. It's okay to blacklist a Christian for spreading hate the Word of God.
Turn on the news.
The only people who are going to see and spread such things (the cross being made in the synagogue) are those who view the movie with the intention of finding fault and promoting an agenda and who are not opposed to using their imaginations to embellish what they "see." It's not so different than these liberal whackjob journalists that report only what supports their own agenda and who have no problem torturing truth in such a way as to make it unrecognizable, as long at it connveys THEIR message, and the truth be d*mned. That is simply the devil slithering through their minds, always monitoring what is made available for public consumption. That shrieking you hear is his reaction to encountering someone (in this case, Mel) with enough faith to confront and defeat his machinations.
That said, I think I know which scene they are referring to and I certainly didn't get that out of it.
Not to mention common decency and common sense.
Personally, I don't see what all the Catholic/Protestant hype is about. In my opinion, it is just another tool the devil has slipped into the mix since he failed so miserably at keeping people away based on the false premise of anti-Semitism. The next best thing is to get Christians at each other's throats by saying the movie is too Catholic. Yeah, that'll work. < /sarcasm > C'mon; the only one that wins with that attitude is the devil.
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.