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

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

[Greg Luzinski]

Much discussed. Thought it would be worthwhile to put online.

[Greg Luzinski]

I recently received this for a breakfast tomorrow in NYC 823 United Nations Plaza (46th Street and First Avenue) ...

Upcoming Events:

Gibson's The Passion: Special Insider Briefing with Abraham H, Foxman: Mr. Foxman will offer his perspective and concern surrounding the film. Friday, September 12th, 8:30 am @ ADL. Space is limited. Please RSVP to 212-885-7977 or vbecker@adl.org.

[Rain-maker]

Sure is strange they want to silence Christ's message again. Must be a genetic defect.

[nickcarraway]

The Passion ping

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

[stands2reason]

Very interesting article.

[Clintons a commie]

Thanks for posting this. An excellent read!

Also, Mel's anger is more understandable in context.

[bethelgrad]

What is interesting to me is that Gibson's "traditional" approach dislikes ecumenism, yet he seems to be actively courting Evangelicals. And, the fact that this movie is being made shows that he is ok with private interpretation.

[Belial]

Best article on this so far, thanks!

[wimpycat]

What is interesting to me is that Gibson's "traditional" approach dislikes ecumenism, yet he seems to be actively courting Evangelicals.

What's even more interesting to me is that Evangelicals (including the Southern Baptist Convention) are coming out very much in favor of this movie. If anyone knows whether the movie passes Scriptural muster, so to speak, it would be the Evangelicals. Not to mention that many Evangelicals are coming out in support of a *spit*, *spit* Roman Catholic "traditionalist". 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 think it goes to show that the common perceptions people have about both the traditionalists and evangelicals don't always ring true.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Hey Mel,

Your not an 'artist', your a man. Make the movie, take your stand.

I'm starting to think your brother is right when he called you a wimp.

Oh, start praying your rosary and quit being a potty mouth.

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

[nickcarraway]

I think it depends on what is meant by ecuminism.

[mlmr]

This reporter's bias is the reason I dumped the New Yorker about 10 years ago. For background he only consults leftist and paleoliberal scholars. Where is the balance with interviews from Fuller theologiacal , Wheaton College, Dallas Theological Seminary and other conservative Catholics? More leftist garbage masquarading as balanced reporting.

[DallasMike]

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...

Hey, he flat out said that his wife won't even make the cut because she isn't a Catholic!

FWIW, I'm a staunch Protestant but I certainly expect to see many, many Catholics in Heaven, including Gibson.

[Urbane_Guerilla]

What a great article. The New Yorker is the best magazine, ever. And what does it say? Gibson is a human being ... just like the rest of us ... imperfect. So what.

As an agnostic, I am very much looking forward to this movie. As this article suggests, it seems it will be a movie which transcends its pre-release criticism.

I make this prediction: this movie will make more money than any other ever produced. I will go further: this movie will dwarf all others in the money made.

The interesting question, which is the subtext of all the controversy, is whether this movie will affect human hearts more than any other.

Judging by Sister Mary Applesauce and the other leftists who felt compelled to lecture Gibson, they are very very scared that Jesus might actually come across as a messanger of love and compassion. Why would they feel that way?

[F16Fighter]

It was like they [so-called "scholars"] were more or less saying I have no right to interpret the Gospels myself, because I don't have a bunch of letters after my name. But they are for children, these Gospels. They're for children, they're for old people, they're for everybody in between. They're not necessarily for academics. Just get an academic on board if you want to pervert something!”

Amen Mel.

[wimpycat]

Yeah, well, he's been married to her for how long? And yet he's still married to her (of course, he can't divorce her), but she's still not a Catholic. So, somehow, they manage. But I can understand why he says what he says and why he also says she's a saint. I don't see as much incongruity as some people might.

As to the other thing you said, I feel the same way.

[F16Fighter]

"Judging by Sister Mary Applesauce and the other leftists who felt compelled to lecture Gibson, they are very very scared that Jesus might actually come across as a messanger of love and compassion. Why would they feel that way?"

I assume it's because these religio-elitists feel Mel Gibson is ditching in line to meet the King of Kings without having proper heavenly "credentials."

[TontoKowalski]

Oh, start praying your rosary and quit being a potty mouth.

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.