Posted on 10/07/2003 12:35:49 AM PDT by kstewskis
Making the gospel less offensive, something non-believers were unable to achieve for 2,000 years, may be accomplished by today’s politically correct and theologically sensitive.
Mel Gibson, “under fire from Jewish groups,” according to the Religion News Service, has agreed to “soften” his portrayal of Jews in his upcoming film’s depiction of the death of Jesus Christ.
“The Passion,” which will be released next March, will add sympathetic Jewish characters to the storyline and have them shout unbiblical words of opposition to Jesus’ crucifixion, lest moviegoers get the impression that Jews actually wanted God’s Son put to death.
The movie apparently also will do without the gospel account of a Jewish mob calling for Jesus’ blood “to be on us and on our children,” according to the Religion News Service. “That’s in the gospel,” RNS quotes the film’s marketing director Paul Lauer, who added, “It’s not in our film.”
Given the inroads critics already have made and given liberal Hollywood’s antipathy for anything Christian, Christians should pray that the Good News doesn’t end up merely the pretty good news by the time it hits theater screens.
Gibson’s movie, which has been previewed in select private showings, already is widely acclaimed—by Christians—as the most accurate and faithful film depiction of the last hours of Jesus’ life.
As any Christian with a casual familiarity with the gospels is aware, Jesus’ death was predestined by God and directly resulted from the plotting and insistence of Jews and Jewish leaders, including Judas Iscariot, the scribes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, King Herod, high priests Annas and Caiaphas, and ultimately was carried out on orders from the Roman governor Pontias Pilate, who unsuccessfully tried to persuade the Jewish mob that there was no reason to kill Him.
One might imagine contemporary Jews could be a tad sensitive about their ancestors’ roles in the plot and murder, even though Jesus and His followers also were Jews.
Gibson, a devout and conservative Catholic, has explained that he set out to convey “the full horror of what Jesus suffered for our redemption.” But at this rate, by the time the film is released next year the “Passion” may be diluted to Gospel Lite.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, is quoted by Religion News Service saying, “We respect his (Gibson’s) creative rights, but we also believe that creative rights come with responsibilities.”
It would appear that respect extends only if Gibson doesn’t offend Foxman’s concept of Christian “responsibility.” However, Foxman and other Jewish critics show little respect for Gibson’s right—and responsibility—to faithfully portray Holy Scripture.
In short, Gibson’s Jewish critics presume to dictate how Christ’s Word must be portrayed by faithful Christians.
The critics’ hubris is astounding.
Imagine the outrage if Christians complained about Jews depiction of the Pharaoh as a meany because it reflects poorly on Egyptians. Imagine the huff it would create if Christians insisted that Muslims must portray Mohammed as an apostate blasphemer because he denied Jesus’ divinity. Where were these critics when Martin Scorsese filmed “The Last Temptation of Christ,” a vile and blasphemous portrayal of Jesus’ last days?
It seems Christ bashing is within the bounds of “responsibility,” while accurately presenting the Gospel is not.
Gibson and Jim Caviezel, the actor who portrays Jesus, have expressed hope that an accurate depiction of the Savior’s agony and suffering will communicate to movie audiences as no film before just how momentous the price was that the LORD paid to save His chosen.
Indeed, Christ took upon Himself all the pain and punishment for all the sins of mankind, past, present and future so we can be saved eternally. It was no small moment in the story of man. But if critics like the Anti-Defamation League have their way, how much more diluted will this all-important message be? Why let little things like historical accuracy and biblical inerrancy get in the way?
Not surprisingly, Gibson’s appeasement apparently isn’t appeasing enough.
Religion News Service reported that Rabbi A. James Rudin, senior interreligious affairs adviser for the American Jewish Committee, was troubled after viewing a preview of the film. Rabbi Rudin insists that he knows how the Christian Gospels “should” be depicted.
The film, “should be more on what killed Jesus, not who killed Him,” Rudin proclaimed.
In short, Foxman, Rudin and other Jewish critics would dictate a non-offensive Gospel to Christians. For anyone familiar with the Gospels, the irony should not be lost. If Jesus had merely toned down His message 2,000 years ago, Judas, Ciaiphas and the rest of their ilk would have been much happier, too.
“The Passion’s” pre-release buzz holds promise for believing Christians that finally the story of our Lord will be portrayed faithfully and meaningfully. Indeed, there already are reports of agnostics and Muslims working on the set who converted to Christianity during the production.
“I hope the film has the power to evangelize,” Gibson told Charisma News. “Everyone who worked on this movie was changed.”
Mel Gibson might take a cue from the Apostle Paul, “... if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”
In some ways, not much has changed in 2,000 years. Paul told the saints at Corinth that “we preach Christ crucified, but that to the Jews (it is) a stumbling block.”
Mark Landsbaum, a former Los Angeles Times staff writer, is an evangelical Christian, freelance writer and author from Diamond Bar, Calif.
|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
He's being kind. Self absorbed arrogance if you ask me.
So just what are these Jewish leaders afraid of? I mean, it's not like this story hasn't been around for a while. What have they had to say regarding the New Testament? Should we consider hiding our Bibles under a floor board?
The ADL should consider a name and mission change; something on the order of Anti Christian League maybe.
They doth protest too much.
FGS
Mr. Gibson seems to be searching for the way to present The Passion.
He will succeed.
Good post. No doubt, the Jews have a valid reason, as history has shown us several times. And I think they acknowledge their fear, by their questioning of Gibson's honest attempt at authenticity (according to the Gospels) in making this movie. The problem is, many are creating more percepted fear of the movie before seeing it. Concern is one thing...calling Gibson an anti-semite and slandering him publically without evidence is another.
"It's a piece of film," Gibson has said many times. The Jews today have much more to fear from the Islamic radicals (and the likes of Arafat, as you cited) who would do anything they could to exterminate the Jews for good, than their Christian cousins, who will stick up for them.
Gibson has said several times in interviews, that the message of this movie is about "faith, hope, love, and forgiveness.." (paraphrasing his quote)...it's for everyone...not just for a few select Christians. And it is his hope that the images and that message will overcome the language barrier of the film...even with subtitles.
May the peace of Our Lord be with you always,
According to the recent Sept. 15th New Yorker Magazine Article, Gibson really did not want to leave out the scripture in Matthew 27:25...his comment was:
“I wanted it in,” he says. “My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. It happened; it was said. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come kill me.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/980753/posts
Gibson's desire is to be as true and authentic to The Gospels, as no one has before. From what we're hearing, he's done that, and that's why the ADL/ACL (LOL!) are acting the way they are.
I think, from what he has said, there are legitimate threats towards him for this movie. Might be a personal safety issue for he and his family.
After all, there always could be "a director's cut" released on DVD at a later time.
Some people get upset at Mel because his movie (in their mind) might cause angst about it being anti-semetic, so they make death threats against him?
It's ok to make death threats against Catholic Christians, but we better not make this movie appear anti-semetic? (Which it doesn't...)
What's wrong with this picture?
Ah, you pegged it again, my friend.
in their mind is just that. Delusions of grandeur. They are mentally ill, in my humble "O," and their opinions are bordering psychopathic.
When they start threatening my "lethal hero"...then they'll have HUGE bone to pick with me! /grin
The moon is coming up over my pines, and the temps are in the 60's. Unseasonably warm, but am loving every moment of it.
Work was a nightmare today.
I'l freeepmail you about it sometime soon.
Protesting Gibson's 'Passion' lacks moral legitimacy
World Net Daily | 9/22/03 | Rabbi Daniel Lapin
Never has a film aroused such hostile passion so long prior to its release as has Mel Gibson's "The Passion." Many American Jews are alarmed by reports of what they view as potentially anti-Semitic content in this movie about the death of Jesus, which is due to be released during 2004. Clearly the crucifixion of Jesus is a sensitive topic, but prominent Christians who previewed it, including friends like James Dobson and Michael Novak who have always demonstrated acute sensitivity to Jewish concerns, see it as a religiously inspiring movie and refute charges that it is anti-Semitic. While most Jews are wisely waiting to see the film before responding, others are either prematurely condemning a movie they have yet to see or violating the confidentiality agreements they signed with Icon Productions.
As an Orthodox rabbi with a wary eye on Jewish history which has an ominous habit of repeating itself, I fear that these protests, well intentioned though some may be, are a mistake. I believe those who publicly protest Mel Gibson's film lack moral legitimacy. What is more, I believe their actions are not only wrong but even recklessly ill-advised and shockingly imprudent.
For an explanation of why I believe that those Jews protesting "The Passion" lack moral legitimacy, we must take ourselves back in time to the fall of 1999. That was when Arnold Lehman, the Jewish director of the Brooklyn Museum presented a show called "Sensation." It featured, from the collection of British Jew Charles Saatchi, several works which debased Catholicism, including Chris Ofili's dung-bedecked Madonna.
You may wonder why I highlight the Jewish ethnicity of the players in the Brooklyn Museum saga. My reason for doing so is that everyone else recognized that they were Jewish, and there is merit in us knowing how we ourselves appear in the eyes of those among whom we live. This is especially true on those sad occasions when we violate what ancient Jewish wisdom commends as the practice of Kiddush HaShem, which is to say, conducting our public affairs in a way best calculated to bring credit upon us as a group. Maintaining warm relations with our non-Jewish friends is a traditional Jewish imperative and the raison d'être of the organization I serve, Toward Tradition.
Let us return to the Brooklyn Museum. It was noted at the time that this is not the first time Lehman had chosen to offend Catholics. While he was director of the Baltimore Museum, in a display of gross insensitivity to the city's Catholics, he screened "Hell's Angel," a film denouncing Mother Teresa as a religious extremist and depicting her in obscenely uncomplimentary and ghoulish terms. No Jewish organizations protested this gratuitous insult of a universally respected Catholic icon.
In Brooklyn, almost every Christian organization erupted with indignation against the museum. Especially prominent was William Donohue, president of The Catholic League, a friend who has always stood firmly with us Jews in the fight against genuine anti-Semitism, yet now, in his fight against anti-Catholicism, he appealed to Jewish organizations in vain. Almost every Christian denomination helped vigorously protest the assault that the Brooklyn Museum carried out against the Catholic faith in such graphically abhorrent ways. Even Mayor Rudolph Giuliani expressed his outrage by trying to withhold money from the museum. Where was the Jewish expression of solidarity against such ugliness? Only an almost invisibly small group of Orthodox Jews joined their fellow Americans in protest at this literal defilement of Christianity with elephant feces. And were other Jews silent? No, not really. In actuality, a small but disproportionately vocal number of them were defending the Brooklyn Museum and its director in the name of artistic freedom.
Here are a few of the names that were prominently defending the Brooklyn Museum's flagrant anti-Christianism during fall 1999. Norman Siegel and Arthur Eisenberg of the New York Civil Liberties Union, Steven R. Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union and lawyer Floyd Abrams, cousin of Elliot Abrams who holds the position of top adviser on Israel-related matters in President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Although at synagogues and around dinner tables revulsion at the "Sensation" exhibit was widespread, not very many Jews publicly supported our Catholic friends in the time of their pain.
You may also remember Martin Scorsese's 1988 film "The Last Temptation of Christ." Then, too, almost every Christian denomination protested Universal's release of a movie so slanderous that had it been made about Moses, or say, Martin Luther King Jr., it would have provoked howls of anger from the entire country. As it was, Christians were left to defend their faith quite alone other than for one solitary courageous Jew, Dennis Prager. Most Americans knew that Universal was run by Lew Wasserman. Most Americans also knew Lew's ethnicity. Perhaps many now wonder why Mel Gibson is not entitled to the same artistic freedom we accorded Lew Wasserman?
When the Weinstein brothers, through their Miramax films (named after their parents, Mira and Max Weinstein,) distributed "Priest" in 1994, Catholics were again left to protest this unflattering depiction of their faith alone, while many Jewish organizations proclaimed the primacy of artistic freedom. Surely Jewish organizations would carry just a little more moral authority if they routinely protested attacks on all faiths, not only those troubling to Judaism.
Now, I do have one possible explanation for why it might be more important to protest "The Passion." It is this: In Europe, anti-Semitic slander frequently resulted in Catholic mobs killing Jews. Our hypersensitivity has a long and painful background of real tragedy. In any event, Jewish moral prestige would stand taller if we were conspicuous in protesting movies that defame any religion. Furthermore, opponents of "The Passion" argue that this movie might cause a backlash against the Jewish community. Yet when so-called art really does encourage violence, artistic freedom seems to trump all other concerns. Here is what I mean.
During the '90s, record companies run by well-known executives, including Michael Fuchs, Gerald Levin and David Geffen, produced obscene records by artists like Geto Boys and Ice-T that advocated killing policemen and raping and murdering women. In spite of congressional testimony showing that these songs really did influence teen-age behavior, only William Bennett and C. DeLores Tucker, head of the National Political Congress of Black Women, protested Time Warner. During that decade of shockingly hateful music that incited violence, our Jewish organizations only protested Michael Jackson's song "They Don't Care About Us" and the rap group Public Enemy's single "Swindler's Lust," claiming that these songs were anti-Semitic. It is ignoble to ignore the wrongs done to others while loudly deploring those done to us.
In truth, however, even though Catholics did kill Jews in Europe, I do not believe that the often-sad history of Jews in Europe is relevant now. Why not? Because in Europe, Catholic Church officials wielded a rapacious combination of ecclesiastical and political power with which they frequently incited illiterate mobs to acts of anti-Jewish violence. In America, no clergyman secures political power along with his ordination certificate, and in America, if there are illiterate and dangerous thugs, Christianity is a cure not the cause. In America, few Jews have ever been murdered, mugged, robbed or raped by Christians returning home from church on Sunday morning. America is history's most philo-Semitic country, providing the most hospitable home for Jews in the past 2,000 years. Suggesting equivalency between American Christians today and those of European history is to be offensive and ungrateful. Quite frankly, if it is appropriate to blame today's American Christians for the sins of past Europeans, why isn't it OK to blame today's Jews for things that our ancestors may have done? Clearly both are wrong, and doing so harms our relationships with one of our few remaining friends in the world today.
I think it possible that these protests against "The Passion" are not only wrong, but also stupid, for two reasons. The first reason is that they are unlikely to change the outcome of the film. Mr. Gibson is an artist and a Catholic of deep faith of which this movie is an expression. By all accounts, his motive in making this movie was not commercial. In addition, anyone who saw his "Braveheart" would suspect that Mel Gibson profoundly identified with the hero of that epic, who allowed himself to be violently disemboweled rather than betray his principles. Does anyone really believe that Mel is likely to yield to threats from Jewish organizations?
However there is a second and more important reason I consider these protests to be ill-advised. While Jews are telling Gibson that his movie contradicts historical records about who really killed Jesus, Vatican Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos has this to say:
Mr. Gibson has had to make many artistic choices in the way he portrays the characters and the events involved in "The Passion," and he has complemented the Gospel narrative with the insights and reflections made by saints and mystics through the centuries. Mel Gibson not only closely follows the narrative of the Gospels, giving the viewer a new appreciation for those biblical passages, but his artistic choices also make the film faithful to the meaning of the Gospels, as understood by the Church. Do we really want to open up the Pandora's box of suggesting that any faith may demand the removal of material that it finds offensive from the doctrines of any other faith? Do we really want to return to those dark times when Catholic authorities attempted to strip from the Talmud those passages that they found offensive? Some of my Jewish readers may feel squeamish about my alluding to the existence of Talmudic passages uncomplimentary toward Jesus as well as descriptive of Jewish involvement in his crucifixion. However, the truth is that anyone with Internet access can easily locate those passages in about 10 seconds. I think it far better that in the name of genuine Jewish-Christian friendship in America, we allow all faiths their own beliefs, even if we find those beliefs troubling or at odds with our own beliefs. This way we can all prosper safely under the constitutional protection of the United States of America.
Sorry it's taken so long to reply, but my previous post was the last one before a very late sack time, and a long day on top of that. That said, I wonder how legitimate Gibson's fear of reprisals is. You gotta admit he's getting a lot of mileage out of this dust up. "The only bad press is NO press"??? I can't say one way or the other.
My take on this whole thing is the ADL(and others) are busily building mountains with little solid material to work with. They are fanning nonexistant flames. Are they just flexing their muscles a little to see what develops; to see what the Christian reaction will be?
I generally agree with another poster that essentially stated they(ADL et.al.) are probably shooting themselves in the foot. One has to wonder if they aren't aware of this possibility, that they will look just like any of numerous other groups of whining victims? I don't believer they're stupid, so I question their true motives in their carping.
Gotta check on Calli-fornia.
Regards,
FGS
I really wonder about this. Can you imagine the outcry if anyone in Mel's immediate family were to get so much as a suspicious hangnail? An accident at this point would place a high degree of suspicion on the ADL and their cohorts. If I were the ADL, I'd place 24 hour guard around Mel. ;^)
FGS
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.