Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Passion is Turning Things Upside Down
CBN News at CBN.com ^ | March 9, 2004 | Gene Edward Veith

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]


TOPICS: TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: prideandthepassion; thepassion; thepassioon; thepassiooon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-154 next last
To: newgeezer
"I've made no claim to being a "witness" to what it shows; I merely report what others claim to have seen."

so that gets you off the hook? that little disclaimer?

buddy false witness includes not checking your sources, or are you a liberal story writer for the New Yourk Times, lurking on FR?

Lurking'
61 posted on 03/09/2004 7:20:44 AM PST by LurkingSince'98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
62 posted on 03/09/2004 7:20:57 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
I'm saying that she was in every scene in the movie. I have a very big issue with the Catholic creation called Mary. Is there really a scene where she is mopping/wiping up His blood after the scourging?
63 posted on 03/09/2004 7:21:13 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger

Gene Veith is a very astute observer of modern Christianity. He also has published some excellent work on post-modernism. Thank you for posting his take on The Passion, on the mark as usual.
64 posted on 03/09/2004 7:21:48 AM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Perhaps......I had not thought of that.
65 posted on 03/09/2004 7:22:07 AM PST by Cold Heat (Suppose you were an idiot. Suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Well, since Mary was there at the foot of the cross, and followed Him from the trial to the scourging and through the city to Golgotha, it seems to me she would HAVE to be in most every scene.

OK, if that's the whole movie, I'll give ya that.

66 posted on 03/09/2004 7:22:57 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
there are some Jews who blame all Christians, including those who were not alive at the time, and Christianity itself for the Holocaust.

Tell that to the Allied soldiers, many of them Christian, who died while liberating the concentration camps.

It would suggest that there at least as many non thinking Jews as there are non thinking Christians.

67 posted on 03/09/2004 7:23:13 AM PST by MassExodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
I don't want to pile on here, but-- your source also claims the movie doesn't end with the resurrection, when everyone I know who's actually seen it loves the way the Resurrection was handled at the end...I don't believe Timothy Kwoh has actually seen the movie. The other messages on that site are somewhat bizarre, IMO.
68 posted on 03/09/2004 7:25:40 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Yes there is.

As a protestant, I do not understand the aversion to Mary. The blood wiping was more of a Jewish thing.

Mary is not shown as a saint,or icon, but as a loving mother.

69 posted on 03/09/2004 7:25:45 AM PST by Cold Heat (Suppose you were an idiot. Suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: 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?

~

Bad analogy. You don't have to have firsthand experience to denounce homosexuality, but you have to have certain knowledge before you denounce a fellow church member for having strange men over nightly.

70 posted on 03/09/2004 7:26:42 AM PST by ahayes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Is there really a scene where she is mopping/wiping up His blood after the scourging?

Yes, there is. There were quite a few extra-biblical elements in the movie -- more than I expected, really -- but I was on the lookout for anything that would actually contradict the gospels, and still saw nothing substantive. (A few tiny quibbles, like no audible rooster crowing at the time of Peter's denial, but nothing major). Mary did get a lot of attention, but she was not made out to be anything other than Jesus' mother... although Peter & John did refer to her as 'mother' once or twice; attach whatever significance to that you want.

71 posted on 03/09/2004 7:28:07 AM PST by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
first please re-read Miss Marples' comment to you!

Yes, I believe that scene (His Mother wiping up his Blood from the ground) is entirely plausible - here is why:

Flashback to Deeley Square Novemmber 1963: the President is shot in the bck of the head with a Mauser, blowing the back of his skull off. What does his wife, Jackie O. do? She crawls on her hands and knees on the truck of the speeding limo and scoops up the brains and blood which are on the trunk and tries to put them back in his head!!!

It is totally believeable, appropriate and totally the product of Mel Gibson's spectacular imagination!

My question again sir! Are you afraid of CATHOLIC COOTIES ???

Lurking'
72 posted on 03/09/2004 7:30:22 AM PST by LurkingSince'98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Sloth - You are right on the money. The apostle John, "the one whom Jesus loved", is seen throughout the film at the side of the two Marys. John the Baptist was a man of the wild and was most certainly NOT at the crucifixion or trials or anywhere else, nor was he featured in the flashbacks. He was already dead at the time of Jesus'arrest. In Matthew 14: 1-12, the account of John's demise is recorded along with the disciples' report to Jesus. Sounds like a questionable source, to be certain.
73 posted on 03/09/2004 7:30:50 AM PST by the lone haranguer (Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MassExodus
there are some Jews who blame all Christians, including those who were not alive at the time, and Christianity itself for the Holocaust.

Anti-Christianism good, anti-Semitism bad.

74 posted on 03/09/2004 7:31:24 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
Be interesting to see a "sequel"; I personally would like to see a remake of Quo Vadis

Interesting, yeah.

What would be a REALLY great movie would be the story of Saul of Tarsis' becoming Paul.

Blood thirsty fanatical persecutor of Christians becomes Christs servent to the world.

75 posted on 03/09/2004 7:32:00 AM PST by MassExodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
I gotta run, but before I go, I have one more statement to make.

If you are looking for a purist movie, you would have been in the theater for 15 minutes because that is the time it would take to read the scripture.

Gibson tastefully and faithfully put together a wonderful rendition of the last twelve hours of Christ.

See it if you like. but don't criticize something that you know little about except for the vicious screeds written about it.

If you do not see it, then no one will criticize you for that.

76 posted on 03/09/2004 7:35:49 AM PST by Cold Heat (Suppose you were an idiot. Suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
Mary said "it would never catch on".

I really liked that scene.

77 posted on 03/09/2004 7:35:59 AM PST by NeoCaveman (New and improved is typically neither!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Sloth - I have seen the movie and didn't really understand the significance of wiping up of Jesus' blood after the scourging. Was this Jewish tradition or was it a Roman requirement that the family clean up the mess? If it were a Jewish tradition, why did Claudia have to give Mary and Mary the linens? If it was a Roman requirement, why was there no order to clean up the mess? I am really curious. Of course, there could be no significance whatsoever. I'd be interested to hear your opinion (and any others). As far as the "Mother" reference, I believe it was a convention much like some of us practiced in calling our friend's mothers Mom or Ma. They treated us like sons, so why not?

As far as the lack of the rooster's crow, how could anyone have heard that over the racket being made by the attendees of the kangaroo court and the bystanders? The only Biblical item I would liked to have seen included was the centurion's confession. I was certain, on two occasions, that it was coming and it never materialized. Wonder why?
78 posted on 03/09/2004 7:40:38 AM PST by the lone haranguer (Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Okay, I apologize for being so harsh, but I had to shake you to get you thinking. Pray about it, and you will know if you should see it or not.
God Bless.
79 posted on 03/09/2004 7:41:50 AM PST by wolicy_ponk (If con is the opposite of pro, is congress the opposite of progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Thanks, but I'm satisfied to meditate on the Word of God. I'd rather not have that experience forever influenced by a lasting imprint of someone else's interpretation.

Your faith will be strong enough to withstand the "lasting imprint" of viewing the Word of God interpreted on film, NG.
I rather get the sense that you have other reasons for not wishing to view this film, and that is fine. It is, after all, only a movie.

80 posted on 03/09/2004 7:44:40 AM PST by Ignatz (Scribe of the Unwritten Law: hey, somebody's gotta NOT write this stuff down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-154 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson