The Passion is Turning Things Upside Down

CBN News at CBN.com ^ | March 9, 2004 | Gene Edward Veith

[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]

[ArrogantBustard]

If they're referring to the scene I think they're referring to, the person with the hammer was not working on wood at all; he appeared to me to be working on a shackle. IOW, the reviewer you quote appears to me to be making a false statement about the film.

See it or not, as you wish, but remember that even professional movie reviewers make mistakes and all bring thier prejudices with them.

[wjcsux]

You just have to love watching the left spin out of control over this movie! Watching the "Hollywood Elite" frothing at the mouth is very entertaining in itself.

[biblewonk]

so without seeing it you are also condeming it?

I always defer to folks, like yourself, who condemn without actually being a witness!

sounds like your "bearing false witness" to me.

Do I have to have firsthand knowledge to condemn homosexuality?

[Savage Beast]

You're right. That's a very interesting observation. One can't help wondering what Mel will do next--and how much his next venture will rake in--to the horror of Hollywood.

[LurkingSince'98]

bw

no, but you must have "certain knowledge" or its false witness or slander.

And you have "certain knowledge" in this instance or did you read about it online like newgeezer. As my wife like to say :" what's your source?"

Lurking'

[Sloth]

... [The film suggests], without serious evidence, historically or biblically, the cross on which Christ was to be crucified was made in a Jewish synagogue....

I believe that is a complete fabrication. I saw no such thing in the movie. It didn't show the 'making' of the cross at all, as far as I recall.

[aruanan]

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.

How do people manage to write such absolutely moronic things as this?

[biblewonk]

Wow, what a rotton lie to make up if that is the case!!!!

[buffyt]

"The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook." --William James

"The devil's boots don't creak." --Scottish Proverb

"Kind words can be short and easy to speak but their echoes are truly endless." --Mother Theresa

Thou hast commanded that an ill-regulated mind should be its own punishment." --Saint Augustine

[ArrogantBustard]

Right before they cut to the "Jesus Making a Rich Man's Table" scene, the scene is inside the Temple Guardhouse. A craftsman is working on 'something'. I believe that 'something' is a shackle attached to the end of a chain. Some people seem to be misinterpreting it as working on the Cross.

[buffyt]

They did not show them making the cross in a synagogue.

[Sloth]

Ah... I don't recall seeing that in particular, either, but it is much more believable (and less significant).

[randog]

I refuse to believe the statements about having nothing further to do with Mel Gibson. The lure of money is absolutely overpowering to these scum.

Right-o. Suzanne Fields wrote an article (it's here on FR) about the movie and speculates that every Hollywood mogul is now scouring the planet for religious scripts. Knowing them, however, they'll probably do a movie about the Inquisition and link it to the Bush Administration; something akin to "The Reagans". They may love money, but they're really out of touch with common society and just can't help themselves when it comes to their biases and prejudices.

[LurkingSince'98]

thank you, bufyt!

I obviously could not have said it better.

Regards,
Lurking

[hellinahandcart]

I believe that is a complete fabrication. I saw no such thing in the movie. It didn't show the 'making' of the cross at all, as far as I recall.

The online source may have bought into the belief that "The Passion" was based more or less completely on Anne Emmerich's "The Dolorous Passion of Jesus". Which I am currently reading, to see how much of the film actually *is* based on it, and which, "from what I hear", has the cross being made in this manner (I haven't reached that part yet).

So it's not in the movie, eh?

[ArrogantBustard]

The "craftsman with a hammer" shot lasts all of two or three seconds.

[Andyman]

. . . made in a Jewish synagogue.

First, this is a crock. This NEVER appeared in the film. Second, are there non-Jewish synagogues?

[AFPhys]

Huh? I think whoever posted that it completely off base.

I've seen the movie twice, since the first time I viewed it, I was so extremely tense. (It is NOT excessively violent or anti-Semetic, etc., and is certainly true to the Bible.) The cross is shown as being made, but I do not believe that scene was in the temple, but it was rather the Roman's putting it together - that despite Pilate saying to the high priest, in effect, 'you guys want to crucify him, do it yourself! - leave me out of it' Certainly, it was Roman soldiers who subsequently were forcing Jesus to carry it, not the temple guards - somewhat to my surprise, after that statement.

I will certainly pay attention to the accuracy of your contention next time I see the film, but as of now, I don't expect that to be immediately, and if accurate, it will be only the first flaw I've yet seen in it.

I'll state yet another time, that despite any flaw a critic may find in this, it is the most important piece of Christian art of the last hundred year at least. It is even more striking the second time it is viewed than the first, surprisingly. It is, in addition, incredibly accurate theologically, historically, and from the point of view of church history. No matter the quibbles a person may have with it, it ultimately portrays faithfully and precisely the Gospel message encompassed in The Passion.

The "too much violence" has been way overplayed by critics.

I suspect that the most important reason that most people who are trying to drive people away from this movie is fear - fear that those who see it may realize they ought change the way they live their life.

[wolicy_ponk]

You don't think they would do anything untoward in the Synagogue?
Like SELLING and BUYING things?
I believe your fundamentalist view may be somewhat narrowed by the limits you may (or may not) be placing on the power of GOD.
I am talking especially about your Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) belief,
which happens NOT to be supported by Scripture, anywhere.
You may miss a good movie about Christ's Passion by acting like a Pharisee.

[biblewonk]

The bible says much about getting counsel. My sources about the movie are about 50 readings through the NT and 40 through the OT, 50 million commercials, and the counsel of the many people who claim to have seen the movie which I weigh against that person's probability of liking something I wouldn't or lying about it.