The big five losers from 'The Passion'

Jerusalem Post ^ | 3.10.04

[AMDG&BVMH]

"Without that interpretation, The Passion of the Christ is nothing more nor less than the old charge of deicide. "

I appreciate your endeavor to explain why some feel hurt by it. But within the Passion of the Christ, the clear teaching of Christianity is presented that Christ died for the sins of humanity; a deicide accusation is NOT in the film.

So, it still seems to come back to a type of projection.
1. Those hurt are hurt because they fear the charge of deicide against Jews.
2. Fearing that charge, they accuse Christians and the film The Passion of making that charge.
3. The film does not make that charge.
4. However: Those hurt do not believe the Christians professing their own faith that humanity is responsible. (They could accept that, without accepting the divinity of Christ personally. They could at least accept what Christians say about the Christian religion.) And they don't believe that the charge of deicide is not in the film.
5. I would conclude, they are hurt by their own unnecessary fears. Rather than by Christians or the Passion. Yes, we can have compassion for that, but it is based upon emotion, not logic.

[harrowup]

I thought he made a very reasoned analysis. It wasn't some hysterical diatribe a la Foxman.

I agree he wasn't hysterical but he wasn't reasoned either.

"Even in the New Testament, the passion of Christ occupies at most a chapter or two in each of the gospels, while the life of Jesus is spelled out more than 10 times that number."

"Gibson tells us that what made Jesus special was not that he lived righteously but that he died bloodily."

This is the most ridiculous argument about the film that I hear from so many friends who have seen the movie.

This movie was about The Passion, not a guide to His teaching.

And the fact is, that Christians believe Christ died for their sins and he was not murdered by the Jews, but gave His life

Apparently there are some folks on this planet that think the Crucifix is some sort of prop. I know that when I was growing up, I shuddered every time I ever saw the cruelty and wonder to this day why people wear the Crucifix instead of just the cross...they are stronger folks than I...to be reminded every day just how much one man suffered for their sins...I can't carry that kind of guilt.

[Bommer]

Where is Christian sensitivity to an allegation that has led to the death of millions of Jews throughout the ages?

By the mear fact that a Holocost museum exists in a country where no Jewish Holocost occured and the taxes I'm bled to support Israel is all the proof of sensitivity thats needed. Without the U.S. and its overwealming Christian population, Israel would be nothing but a smudge! And yet I've heard more hatred towards Gibson and Christianity from Jews then I've heard from Christians hatred towards the Jews after they've seen the movie! Wheres the rampid Anti-Semitism this movie was to spark?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Without that interpretation [divinity of Christ + he died "for our sins"], The Passion of the Christ is nothing more nor less than the old charge of deicide.

This is a nonsensical statement in multiple ways.

1. To people who do not accept the divinity of Jesus, he was simply a man, not God. Therefore the charge "X killed Jesus" can not be a charge of "deicide" against X; at worst it's a charge of murder. (In the case of Jesus, I'm inclined to think it wasn't even murder; he was given capital punishment by the ruling authority of his time and place, and let's face it, he does seem to have been guilty of the blasphemy charge against him, so even if his execution was bad, how is it "murder"?) But to say that "X killed Jesus" is a charge of "deicide" is to imply that Jesus was God, which as you say is manifestly not what any (conventional) Jew thinks. So then how could any Jew think he, or anyone else, is being charged with "deicide" in the first place?

2. Even if one accepts that it's a charge of deicide (by saying "well it's deicide in Christians' eyes anyway..."), you gloss over whom that charge is against as if it is but a small detail. At the very most, it is a charge being levelled against (a) some Romans (and perhaps e.g. Syrian or other foreign soldiers working for the Romans) who comprised or worked for the ruling authority in Judea at the time, and (b) whichever Jews (i.e. Sanhedrin) may have been involved in turning Jesus over to those Romans from (a), or who may have worked for/collaborated with the Roman rulers (we know there *were* some, e.g. Saul/"Paul", right?).

But all of the people being charged in (a) and (b) are now dead and have been so for nearly 2000 years.

So when you say "it's a charge of deicide!" my reaction is, "yeah, ok, so what?" First of all, someone killed Jesus, so we gotta charge someone with this "deicide" (if that's what you believe)...isn't that ok? Second, it's a charge being made against a group of people X. All of the individual people in that group X are dead. Why should anyone today, Jewish or otherwise, feel "hurt" by identification of some or all of the individual people that group X?

Also, is group X somehow not allowed to contain any Judeans? Was it metaphysically impossible for any Judeans 2000 years ago to have had a hand in getting Jesus killed? From the way detractors now talk, one would think so. To say "'the Jews' didn't kill Jesus" is perfectly reasonable, of course, but to say that "NO Jews even had a hand in killing Jesus" is stretching things. I don't know that. Are not Jews capable of this aspect of human experience (gettin' someone killed)? Why infantilize Jews so much that we deny the very possibility that some of them had a hand in this deed? But, you see what I'm saying, I am sure.

Jews have been persecuted and died as a result of Jew-hatred and/or the deicide charge.

That is of course true but it does not mean I have to take a claim like "Mel Gibson's movie charges 'The Jews' with deicide" seriously if that claim is, in fact, factually untrue. I don't see how it's even within the realm of possiblity that a narrative film depicting Jesus' execution "charges 'The Jews' with killing Jesus". It can charge some Jews with doing it but I cannot for the life of me imagine how it can charge "the" Jews.

There may indeed be people who walk away from Mel Gibson's movie with the nonsensical impression that "'The Jews' killed Jesus" but those people are frickin' idiots, and I will say so at every opportunity if I ever encounter them.

Still doesn't justify the nonthinking criticism being levelled against Gibson's film. Not his fault there are frickin' idiots in the world.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It still seems to come back to a type of projection...they are hurt by their own unnecessary fears. Rather than by Christians or the Passion. Yes, we can have compassion for that, but it is based upon emotion, not logic.

Largely, I agree. I comment, however, on your #4: They could accept [Christians professing their own faith that humanity is responsible], without accepting the divinity of Christ personally. They could at least accept what Christians say about the Christian religion.

My theory is that those who cannot accept #4 believe they are taking Christians on their actions, not their words. And there are different versions of history in play here. There is a version of history that says, for example, Passion plays whipped Hitler's Germany into genocidal frenzy.

[Texas2step]

And it seems to me Christians will have a hard time complaining.

True enough. But they can stay home in droves, should they choose to do so. :-)

A couple of points...

1) If this is the "most violent movie in the history of Hollywood", then I'm too stupid to see it. They've tried to hang that label on it, but I don't think it's sticking.

I do think there's a huge difference between "Kill Bill" type gratiutous violence, and an accurate depiction of what maight actually and plausibly happen.

Case in point: "Once Upon a Time in Mexico", a recent box office bomb, used gore and violence in ways that were completely implausible. Nothing that could be perceived as accurate.

The Patriot, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan and other "fiction flicks" were bloody and violent and did not portray violence in a gratuitous way. All were rated "R", as was TPOTC, mainly for their violence. What's to complain about?

How would the praise of a rated "R" movie, take away Christians credibility when it comes to protesting graphic violence on television? Rated "PG" shows? Etc.? This charge is completely disingenious.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"...to be reminded every day just how much one man suffered for their sins...I can't carry that kind of guilt."

There is a beautiful complexity to it. Yes, reminded that we put Him upon the cross by our sins. BUT that we have such dignity and worth that HE willingly died for us . . .

[Tempest]

Doh! I've really got to start proof reading my post one of these days.

#3 should read.

3.) Jewish conservatives or jewish people in general should not be put out by this film. It is a testament to the sacrafice of Jesus NOT a condemnation of Jews.

[Texas2step]

From a column by Cal Thomas, a Christian conservative, who loved The Passion, and is close friends with Frank Rich...

Did I miss Cal quoting Rich? I don't think so. Why then do you compare the two?

[Texas2step]

Good man, outnumbered, betrayed by (some) of his own people, sentenced to die by a cruel occupying ruler. Then tortured and executed as his own people watch on silently... then followed up with a brief but inspirational ending.

This isn't the kind of violence that Christians protest against, anyway. Really, when movie is rated "R", what's to protest?

Let's talk television violence. Video game violence. Violence in "PG" rated movies. I must have missed TPOTC video game coming out? TPOTC being shown on televions? Maybe I missed the "PG" rating?

This point, as well as the other 4 points the author tried to make, are all lethally flawed.

[harrowup]

There is a beautiful complexity to it. Yes, reminded that we put Him upon the cross by our sins. BUT that we have such dignity and worth that HE willingly died for us .

Wow; what a beautiful thought. I'll have to chew on that bright note for a good long time. Thanks.

[blackie]

When Jesus Christ died on the Calvery ~ he did it out of love for us.

The movie was powerful account of His last 12 hours ~ everyone should see it!

[AMDG&BVMH]

"Passion plays whipped Hitler's Germany into genocidal frenzy"

weelll that would be an unfortunate oversimplification of a very complex situation; in any case, the Holocaust, Hitler, the Nazis, et al have been discredited and soundly denounced by just about everyone on the planet since 1945. Justifiably so.

The thing about the Passion, is that it is central to the Christian faith. It is not an optional thing that can be dropped or glossed over in the name of Jewish-Christian friendship. To ACCEPT the conclusion that re-enactments of the Passion are inherently anti-Semetic would be to demand the castration of Christianity. Christians are not going to accept that. ;)

But as several posters have pointed out, a starting point is to understand why the other reacts as he does . . .

[Map Kernow]

Rather than getting into a full-blown war with our friends, I think we should each make an effort to explain our differences and our similarities, and also attempt to maintain respect and civility. Calm discussion will do more to assuage fears of the Jewish community than attacks. And calm discussion from the Jewish community will do more to make friendship with Christians than attacks on the movie.

"Attacks"? You're peddling the line that there've been "attacks" because of "The Passion" on Jews? What do you mean precisely by "attacks"?

Substantiate your charges, or I don't see why we need this Rodney King wisdom.

Gibson and "The Passion" have been under attack for as long as a year before its release, mostly by people who hadn't seen it. There're still a lot of people---including a lot who haven't bothered to pay $8 to see the film---who throw around the most outrageous charges about the film---such as that it uses "Nazi" techniques, and comparing it to Leni Riefenstahl's movies. Nothing of the same order of rhetorical magnitude has been served up from Gibson's defenders, much less the physical intimidation or violence routinely predicted as a result of the film's release. I don't buy your attempt to morally equate the opposing positions, and I don't consider any of the people making the scurrilous, baseless charges against the film and, directly or indirectly, the tenets of my faith, to be my "friends."

[Snuffington]

Hard to know how to reply to this. It's been done so many times. I've given up on being outraged at Jews lecturing Christians about what our faith really means. But it still bears a response in case any similar minded folks still have their brains turned on.

In this case we get: "Gibson tells us that what made Jesus special was not that he lived righteously but that he died bloodily." Um.. yeah. Because the latter brought us salvation, while the former gave us our example of Christian virtue. Nothing wrong with examples of Christian virtue, but salvation ranks higher on the list of import for Christians.

This would be obvious to any self-described "PASSIONATE ADMIRER of the Christian community" who was passionate enough to educate himself about why Christians have placed such central importance on the passion of Christ for the past two millenea. In artwork, prayer, and theology there can be no denying that Christ's "bloody death" has a pretty darn important role on by itself in the Christian faith. It doesn't take personal belief in that to show a basic understanding of it, and tolerance for it among a group you claim to admire.

It takes a staggering amount of ego-centrism to ignore Christian understanding of the Christian faith, and focus solely on what it means to Jews. News-flash: American Christians don't have pogroms against the Jews. The suggestion that viewing this movie is going to lead them to it is simultaneously a stupid reading of history, and a thumb in the eye of modern Christians.

It's very insightful to see people like Mr. Boteach equating American Christians with proto-Nazis, which is essentially what this critique amounts to. In his eyes, we're a couple of propagandistic movies away from lighting the ovens of our own Auschwitz. Nice to know what your "passionate admirers" truly think about you.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"Wow; what a beautiful thought. I'll have to chew on that bright note for a good long time. Thanks"

:)

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Did I miss Cal quoting Rich? I don't think so. Why then do you compare the two?

Desperation. She's an apologist for those who attack Christianity cloaked in critiquing this movie, for reasons I can't begin to imagine.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Large numbers of people in the world think that Jews are devils. When you see a movie that uses special effects to morph several Jews into devils, it is not a lack of critical thinking, but rather a perception which I can understand, if not share, that these are irresponsible artistic choices.

[Plutarch]

In what manner has Frank Rich passed himself off as political columnist in regards to The Passion?

Well, that is the thing with criticism of The Passion. Left-wingers in general, and Frank Rich in particular, have a political/cultural problem with Christianity. Their Leftist designs include the grinding into powder the entire edifice of Western Civilization, in which Christianity is a major constituent. The Passion is a powerful Christian counter blow, and if it cannot be squelched, it must be contained. For this reason the hysterical attacks against The Passion and its creator. None more hysterical than Frank Rich.

Frank Rich's anti-Passion frothings have, I believe, been primarily from his perch on the NYT's Op-Ed page, not the Arts section. Yes, Veronica, Rich has been plenty political about The Passion.

[sarasmom]

"Where is Christian sensitivity to an allegation that has led to the death of millions of Jews throughout the ages?"

Well, I cant speak for true Christians,but I would submit that the allegations by some Jews of anti-semitism are incredibly insensitive and patently false.
And I also detest insidious PC speach requirements that are supposed to shut the Christians up, most especially nowadays, when this country desperately needs to hear uncompromising Christian values spoken of proudly and loudly.

I dont consider myself a "Christian" in the organised religion sence of the term.
So, as an educated outsider, I think that Jews are entitled to wallow in their fears all they want too.What they are not entitled to is Christian deference to such fears,or "sensitive" Christian apologies for the core beliefs of their faith.

It is really starting to appear that some artificially "media" amplified voices in the Jewish community feel free to label Christianity itself as the most vile form of modern anti-semitism. I tend to question such voices.I doubt they really speak for such a large group of individuals in such matters.But then again, I also dont believe the NAACP is the official spokesgroup for the black community in America.

There have been many thoughtfull essays from members of the Jewish community that manage to express their concerns and fears, without thinly veiled attacks on Christianity itself.

This is not one of them.