Editorial: This battle is Christian, not Jewish [Jpost's take on Gibson's "The Passion"]

Jerusalem Post ^ | Aug. 24, 2003

[yonif]

Is the Jewish community overreacting to The Passion, Mel Gibson's graphic portrayal of the Crucifixion of Jesus and Jewish culpability for that act even before the film's release during Easter 2004?

Or are Christian friends ranging from liberal Catholics long-involved in ecumenical dialogue to conservative Evangelicals, known for their unwavering solidarity with Israel being disconcertingly sanguine? At stake is freedom of artistic and religious expression, dogma, profound misgivings about Gibson's motives, and fear of stoking the embers of Jew-hatred.

There is no Christianity without the Crucifixion, and there is no Crucifixion narrative without the Jews. The Romans may have executed Jesus, but for 2,000 years Christian theology held "the Jews" ultimately responsible.

In The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism, Jules Isaac argues: "No idea has been more destructive and has had more deadly effect... than the pernicious view of [the Jews] as the 'deicide people.'"

Referring to these "murderers of the Lord" and "Christ killers," Christian theologian Dom Gueranger proclaimed (in 1841): "The spectacle of an entire people placed under a curse for having crucified the Son of God gives Christians food for thought... This immense atonement for an infinite crime must continue until the end of the world." The enforced "atonement" took many forms: Crusades, massacres, forced conversions, expulsions, and, finally, the destruction of European Jewry between 1933-1945.

Christian "sacred history," as distinguished from the secular kind, is explicit: The Gospel of Mark (14: 63-64) records the Sanhedrin as declaring Jesus deserving of death because he was guilty of blasphemy. In Mark (15: 1) the Sanhedrin "bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to [Pontius] Pilate."

But hasn't modernity, secularism, and liberal theological adaptations largely taken the sting out of earlier Christian attitudes toward Jews? In short, who these days takes the Bible to heart?

Eighty-two percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. A staggering 87 percent say religion is either "very important" or "fairly important" in their lives. So a film that speaks to religiously receptive Americans with an emotive imagery that only contemporary cinema is capable of simulating certainly has the potential to kindle prejudice. If viewing Schindler's List can inoculate against anti-Semitism, why would the opposite not hold true?

How is an audience supposed to feel after watching the Son of Man being beaten until his skin is hanging off in strips? To see Christ mocked, whipped, beaten, and nailed to the Cross?

Part of the problem is Gibson himself, a member of a schismatic Catholic denomination that holds mass in Latin, rejects key Church reforms and the papacy itself. It was the 1965 Second Vatican Council that absolved Jews from collective guilt for the killing of Jesus "deicide."

Gibson's 85-year old father, Hutton, teaches that Vatican II was a Jewish plot, that the Holocaust never happened, and that al-Qaida was not behind 9/11.

Few have read the script, and even fewer have seen the movie in its current form. But all indications are that The Passion portrays Jews as guilty of killing Jesus. Referring to Matthew (27: 25), "His blood be on us and our children," Gibson's marketing director says, "We have softened the story compared to the way the Gospel has told it."

Gibson's work the dialogue is in Latin and Aramaic, with English subtitles is said to be influenced by the writings of a 19th-century mystical nun, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, who actually added various anti-Semitic elements absent in the Gospels. For now, all that can be seen of the film are its trailers at http://www.themoviebox.net.

But David Horowitz, the conservative pundit who saw a fuller version of the movie, says Jews need not be concerned. "The moral of this Christian story of Mel Gibson's film is that we all killed Jesus Jew and Gentile alike and tortured him, and we do so every day." And critic Michael Medved denounces "liberal activists who worry over the ever-increasing influence of religious traditionalism in American life." Unfortunately, Gibson represents the kind of "traditionalism" that is impossible to embrace. Perhaps the most disappointing voice comes from the National Association of Evangelicals, which warns that Jewish leaders should not "risk alienating two billion [pro-Israel] Christians over a movie."

Uncouth threats notwithstanding, stifling this film strikes one as wrongheaded and counterproductive. The best way to combat potential anti-Semitism here is to turn to our Christian friends.

It is they who should be trying to influence Gibson into removing from the movie elements which perpetuate the canard of deicide and eternal collective Jewish guilt. Failing that, they should be teaching the faithful that a true Christian rejects doctrinal anti-Semitism and all that comes with it. It is Christianity that must come to terms with its own theology and history, and decide whether it wants to allow Mel Gibson to steer it back to another era.

Leading Christian Zionist Rev. Elwood McQuaid strikes just the right note: For Christians, the Crucifixion "was a crime of humanity. Scapegoating Jewry is only a cop-out for the rest

[yonif]

Ping.

[msdrby]

ping

Interesting post. Thanks.

[bigghurtt]

The enforced "atonement" took many forms: Crusades, massacres, forced conversions, expulsions, and, finally, the destruction of European Jewry between 1933-1945.

Are they really trying to make a link between Christianity and the Holocaust?

In short, who these days takes the Bible to heart?

I do

How is an audience supposed to feel after watching the Son of Man being beaten until his skin is hanging off in strips? To see Christ mocked, whipped, beaten, and nailed to the Cross?

I believe they should feel shamed, grateful and forever indebted

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the uproar about this movie. Of course it is going to appear in the movie that the Jews offered up Christ...that's biblical. But to suggest that Jews are are guilty of deicide as a result is ridiculous, and not many free-thinking individuals would come to such a conclusion.

[hellinahandcart]

Well, this is just silly:

How is an audience supposed to feel after watching the Son of Man being beaten until his skin is hanging off in strips? To see Christ mocked, whipped, beaten, and nailed to the Cross?

Humbled by His sacrifice, maybe?

You know, when someone gets a print of this film, and isolates the subliminal-message frames that say "Go forth from this theatre and pay a Jew back for Jesus!", I will be happy to apologize for thinking that all these anti-"Passion" articles are becoming hysterical and over-the-top. But not until then.

[Northern Yankee]

You almost wonder what evil, subversive force is so at work to try and kill this movie?

Gibson represents the traditionalism that is impossible to embrace..

How so?

Jesus himself says over and over in the gospels that know one would have authority over him were it not given from his Heavenly Father up above.

I don't understand all the angst 0ver this movie.

What is it about the Passion that scares the hell out of these people... Truth?...

Ping...

[Paul Atreides]

If one was so inclined, a case could be made that the plethora of Holocaust movies could be viewed by anti-Semites, who would sit in the dark theater secretly cheering on the Nazis.

[marron]

The death of Jesus was a joint jewish-gentile operation.

In the modern world, who are the anti-semites? Are any of them Christian? You have muslims; euro fascists and euro marxists. No Christians among them.

As for anti-semitism of the past, it is instructive to note that kingdoms that gave full vent to anti-semitism were among the most backward, and those that received jewish refugees most freely were the most prosperous and forward looking. If you want to point to historic anti-semitism you have to distingish between the countries that victimized them and those that offered them refuge.

And likewise, in the modern era, those that victimize them, and those that offer them full citizenship, those that side with their victimizers and those that stand by their side under fire.

It is America that is outspokenly anti-anti-semitic, it is American Christians who are steadfast in their defense of Israel against the rest of the world. The Post is going to have a hard time making Americans feel guilty about anti-semitism. Jews have good reason to feel anxious about religious bigotry but they might reserve their paranoia for the folks that are actually attacking them, beating them, burning down their temples, and slaughtering their young. Not the one force on the planet that is determined to stand at their side unto the end of the world.

[Paul Atreides]

Are they really trying to make a link between Christianity and the Holocaust?

Why not? For years, Hitler has been made into a conservative.

[xJones]

There is no Christianity without the Crucifixion, and there is no Crucifixion narrative without the Jews. The Romans may have executed Jesus, but for 2,000 years Christian theology held "the Jews" ultimately responsible.

Why is it not mentioned here that Jesus was a Jew? He was condemned in a late-night kangaroo type of a trial by Jewish leaders, but only the Romans had the authority to crucify him. Without Roman approval, Jesus would not have been crucified.

I've always wondered how people could call themselves Christian, and yet hate the Jewish people. Jesus and then all the leaders of the early church were Jewish. The Bible was written by Jews. *Christian* anti-semitism is inherently illogical. And if Jesus were on trial today, who would be condemning him? Most likely Jews would be a very small minority compared with all the other multitude of accusers.

[MHGinTN]

From the 'article':
"The Romans may have executed Jesus, but for 2,000 years Christian theology held "the Jews" ultimately responsible."

I seem to recall in the scriptures that the people present, when offered a choice of Jesus or Barabas, called for the death of Jesus, stating 'his blood be upon our heads ...'

The real killerwas/is the one who was a liar from the start. The Jews of that day were manipulated by the prince of darkness and thus are not the real ones to blame. The movie will raise up the Sacior for men to see and His gift of salvation to be contemplated. This movie is not about the Jews who called for Jesus's blood, it is about God's grace toward us through His Son, our Savior. The people trying to change the persepctive are once again (ignorantly)serving the father of lies. Ignore them. [Thank you, Mel.]

[hellinahandcart]

Part of the problem is Gibson himself, a member of a schismatic Catholic denomination that holds mass in Latin, rejects key Church reforms and the papacy itself. It was the 1965 Second Vatican Council that absolved Jews from collective guilt for the killing of Jesus "deicide."

It was the 1965 Second Vatican Council that got rid of the Latin mass, too, yet the author (the Rev. listed at the bottom? who should know better) doesn't mention that; he lists "holds mass in Latin" as one of the quirky things about the objectionable Gibson's objectionable church, but he doesn't relate that quirk to Vatican II. Vatican II was about a great many things, not just one. But a person unfamiliar with the history of the church could infer (incorrectly) that all the council did in 1965 was get together and vote to absolve the Jews of deicide. A lot of people didn't and don't like Vatican II, for reasons having nothing to do with that particular decision.

[Timmy]

Man. Where ARE all these people during the constant Christian bashing that goes on in comtemporary TV and movies? Aren't they concerned about directing hatred and violence against Christians? Now, with the first positive Christian movie in, perhaps, decades, they decide the best friends Jews have in the world (American Evangelicals) are mindless monsters who will turn into Jew killers when we see the Gospels we practically know by heart turned into a movie. Sheesh!

[contessa machiaveli]

you have made the most sense, if not for jews, christians wouldn't exist. the collective guilt is all humanity.

the passion is a film, i probably won't see it....not because i'm offended or frightened of the repercussions, but because of the violence and gore. mr. gibson had an artistic vision and is entitled to present it. it will stand or fall on its own merits.

[mitch5501]

"*Christian* anti-semitism is inherently illogical."

Bump

God bless

[A. Pole]

Are they really trying to make a link between Christianity and the Holocaust?

National Socialists were neo-pagan and they (in their inner circle) wanted to eradicate Christianity which they saw as "Jewish invention". Hitler was no more Catholic than Voltaire or more than Lenin/Stalin were Orthodox, Trotsky was Jewish or Pol Pot was a Buddist.

[contessa machiaveli]

there is nothing in the world that can convince me that christians are mindless monsters. we know who our friends are, and we appreciate them (at least i certainly do).
i'm tired of organizations speaking for me and invoking anti-semitism if anything is remotely pro-christian.

[Atchafalaya]

Agree, all mankind past and present and future was the reason for christ's death. He died to save us all, past, present and future.

[kstewskis]

You almost wonder what evil, subversive force is so at work to try and kill this movie?

What is it about the Passion that scares the hell out of these people...

Truth?...

[WOSG]

Where did he get this idea? " ... eternal collective Jewish guilt." ???

I was never taught that in catechism. If any anti-semites used that as a crux/excuse for their own views it was stupidity and far far from theology. And even the term "collective guilt" has a very modernist ring to it.