Posted on 03/20/2004 6:03:12 AM PST by truthandlife
Judging by most of what you read, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is the most dangerous, disgusting movie of all time. Even if you haven't seen it, you know that it's a gore-filled splatterfest with anti-Semitic overtones, that Mel Gibson's father is a flat-out Holocaust-denier, and that Mel himself is a sinister marketing genius.
The movie has been condemned by most reviewers. This paper's Rick Groen said it "comes perilously close to the pornography of violence." Frank Rich, The New York Times cultural writer, has been flaying Mr. Gibson's movie for weeks. "A joy ride for sadomasochists" was among his kinder remarks. The brilliant Christopher Hitchens called it both homoerotic (in a Nazified kind of way) and sadomasochistic. The Toronto Star's Linda McQuaig called it a "torture flick" that will "fan the flames" of anti-Semitism. Commentators of every faith have deplored it as a religious travesty.
So why is The Passion doing such boffo box office?
Because for millions of people across North America, The Passion is a deeply meaningful devotional experience.
"I was profoundly moved," says Ken Godon , who is pastor of Snowdon Baptist Church in Montreal. "It was a very, very emotional experience for me. I saw it twice, and I wept both times. I'm a devout follower of Jesus, and I love him."
The real rift over The Passion is not between the Christians and the Jews. It's
between certain devout Christians and
all the rest of us, especially those of little or no faith. Virtually everyone who mongers opinions in the mainstream media,
including me, belongs to the latter
category.
Rev. Godon is a fine and thoughtful man who counts several rabbis among his friends. His flourishing urban congregation includes Iranians, Filipinos, Africans, West Indians, Chinese and Koreans. Some are converts to Christianity. They feel as he does about the movie. "In the Hebrew scriptures [the Old Testament], there is a chapter which describes what will happen in the future. The Messiah, or the suffering servant, will be marred beyond recognition," he told me. In other words, the gore is precisely the point. "Mel doesn't want people to see a sanitized version of how horrific this was."
In this rendering of Christianity, the suffering is at the very heart of the faith. God allowed His Son to be crushed in our stead. What was done to Jesus is a metaphor for sin. "This is what sin does," says Rev. Godon. "It destroys, it disfigures, it mars. So when you put it all together it becomes a very, very deep reflection. It's a meditation on Jesus and also on my own personal soul."
In the movie, both Jews and Romans howl for Jesus's blood. But Rev. Godon says no Baptist would take a message of anti-Semitism from this. The real message is that we all bear responsibility for Christ's death, and we are all with sin.
In fact, there's no sign that the movie has provoked any upwelling of anti-Semitism. (Some argue that it might be used as a propaganda tool in the Muslim world, but that's another story.) And ironically, the evangelical community is among the staunchest supporters of Jews and Israel. "I have a deep respect for Jewish people," says Rev. Gordon. "I look up to them. I honour them. My faith is connected to their traditions and their scriptures. Everything started with the Jewish people."
He's distressed that some Jewish groups are officially upset by the movie (others are not). "When I look at the film, there is nothing but a profound love for Jesus and a deep respect for the culture from which he came," he says.
Mr. Gibson belongs to a tiny sect of backward-looking Catholics who reject Vatican II and think that everybody but themselves is going to hell. As Andy Rooney said on 60 Minutes, the guy's a wacko.
So isn't it odd that a movie with such wide appeal to Protestants came from him?
"I'm not a Mel Gibson expert," says Rev. Godon. "But I feel reverence oozing out of the film."
Christian evangelism -- which accepts the literal truth of the Bible -- is the fastest-growing brand of religion in North America today. As the grand old edifices of the Anglican and United Churches empty out, the new fundamentalist congregations are booming. It's not hard to guess why. The churches of the Protestant upper classes have neutered Jesus of his terrifying power. They got rid of all the militancy and gore, which were seen as hopelessly primitive. The suffering of Jesus is Christianity's greatest calling card, and they threw it away.
The Jesus I grew up with was a California hippie with a peace symbol. He was gentle, meek, and it never occurred to me that he was Jewish. The revolutionary Jesus condemning sinners to hellfire was nowhere to be seen. Even as I marched up the aisle on the day I was confirmed, it had begun to dawn on me that Jesus was just a metaphor. You weren't expected to take any of this hocus-pocus literally. In which case, why bother?
The up-market liberal churches have pushed God to the sidelines in favour of ecumenism and social justice. He has all but vanished. For evangelicals, God is real. The blood is not a metaphor. The suffering of Jesus is holy, and to contemplate it is to bear witness. "To me, as horrific as it was, the movie was hauntingly beautiful," says Rev. Godon.
You won't see this view articulated in the mainstream media. Most media folks are proudly secular types who regard openly religious people as distinctly odd. If you're gay, bi, or transgendered, we embrace you. But if your orientation is toward Jesus, you'd better keep it to yourself. We are fairly certain that born-again Christians are bigoted, not very intelligent, and possibly dangerous. This stereotype is easy to sustain because we've never actually met one.
After I talked with Ken Godon, I finally went off to see The Passion. To me, the movie was alternately riveting and revolting, moving and unwatchable. Once or twice it almost touched a chord of rapture in me, the sort of rapture that I vaguely remember feeling as a girl.
The Passion is on its way to being the biggest hit in movie history. Something's happening here, and we ought to find out what it is.
Yeah, but I still don't believe that there is some old man in the sky.
The movie has been condemned by most reviewers.
Flat out not true -- at best the reviews are 50/50 and the more influential ones (including Ebert and Ropert) have approved of it.
Commentators of every faith have deplored it as a religious travesty.
Again, flat out not true -- why is she setting her article up with Jason-Blaire type facts? To make her "big-mindedness" some value?
The real rift over The Passion is not between the Christians and the Jews. It's between certain devout Christians and all the rest of us, especially those of little or no faith. Virtually everyone who mongers opinions in the mainstream media, including me, belongs to the latter
Ahh, the crux of the matter (no pun intended). This is what many of us reading this picked up on -- so we have to ask the question if most of the US is Christian to some degree or other and beter than 80% are religious, then why do we allow the media to not reflect our values?
category.
Mr. Gibson belongs to a tiny sect of backward-looking Catholics who reject Vatican II and think that everybody but themselves is going to hell. As Andy Rooney said on 60 Minutes, the guy's a wacko.
Huh? And double-Huh? Gibson is esssentially the Catholic equivilant of Hassidic (sp?) Jews -- a bit backward looking but no Catholic of any stripe thinks everyone is going to hell but them. Again, why these meaningless and mean assertions?
So isn't it odd that a movie with such wide appeal to Protestants came from him?
No, this is from the same New Testament that all Christians read. The artistic embelishments don't change the basic story, which is agreed upon.
The churches of the Protestant upper classes have neutered Jesus of his terrifying power. They got rid of all the militancy and gore, which were seen as hopelessly primitive. The suffering of Jesus is Christianity's greatest calling card, and they threw it away.
Demeaning and wrong. The reason for the draw is that people see the Liberal Mainstream as devoid of any morals, ethics, or scruples. Christianty and Christ's message of love and sacrifice is a refreshing alternative (although really it is the mainstream and these "do anything I want" types are the alternative).
The Jesus I grew up with was a California hippie with a peace symbol.
Then you never read the bible. This is the 60's JC Super Star Jesus that no Christina recognizies except as a shadow of Him.
He was gentle, meek, and it never occurred to me that he was Jewish. The revolutionary Jesus condemning sinners to hellfire was nowhere to be seen. Even as I marched up the aisle on the day I was confirmed, it had begun to dawn on me that Jesus was just a metaphor. You weren't expected to take any of this hocus-pocus literally. In which case, why bother?
In other words, "you Christians are fools and idiots for really believing a human being could be the embodiment of God."
We are fairly certain that born-again Christians are bigoted, not very intelligent, and possibly dangerous. This stereotype is easy to sustain because we've never actually met one.
No, you know that Christians live based on a Moral Code, there is a Right and a Wrong, and they insist that everyone be held accountable for their actions. This is terrifying to the Liberal Left. How is it possible to have not met one? They represent the bulk of the population of the US?
The Passion is on its way to being the biggest hit in movie history. Something's happening here, and we ought to find out what it is.
ya think? In other words, if this wasn't a success, we could contine to treat the Christians with the distain they so richly deserve. Now, the hands over our eyes and the "nya nya nya" on our lips don't work.
Folks, this is NOT an objective report with refreshing honesty. It is an attempt to innoculate the writer from being like the rest of the idiots in the press and Hollywood in completely missing the fact that they are completely and totally out of touch. The little embellishments I addressed are there so her Liberal friends can nod their head and say "yes yes it doesn't make any sense!"
No problemo. If you do end up speaking on topic, please be so kind as to freepmail me a transcript, I'd be curious to read it.
I'm always amazed by this belief. Many of the greatest thinkers and writers in history have been Christian. I cut intellectual teeth on CS Lewis and Chesterton.
This is SO true. A friend of mine and I once went to the (Episcopal) priest in charge of the Sunday school, offering to teach a course on the works of C.S. Lewis. His response was, "Oh, I think this parish has gotten beyond Lewis." I completely lost it, I chewed the guy out royally - told him that was the most fatuous thing I had heard all day, and who in the parish had taken firsts at Oxford in Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, AND English Literature, who in the parish had written for the Oxford History of English Literature, etc. etc. etc. To say he was taken aback is an understatement. Liberals who think Christians are "dumb" have no idea that Lewis was a first-flight intellect and almost unbearably well-educated.
Likewise, if you would be so kind. This is an interesting discussion for me. I spent over a decade thinking of myself as a Deist. It was kind've a lonely place to be. After experiencing the evidence of a Higher Power (whom I acknowledged as God) in my own life, I began reading the Bible for the first time. The God of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, was "familiar" to me. This, indeed, was the God of my personal experience.
I struggled for years with the Gospels and was unable to take that next step. There is a lot of affinity with Judaism for someone in that position. Yet observation of The Law, as in orthodox Judaism, didn't make sense to me. The only way I found to resolve that dissonance was evidenced in the Gospels.
It was a hard starting place for me. Raised without any religious background, and educated at the feet of secular liberalism in the 1960's of Southern Calif, I didn't even learn until I was 40+ years old that Jesus was an actual historical figure. Since the release of The Passion, I've been somewhat surprised to encounter people with doctorate degrees who likewise hold a firm, completely unquestioned belief, that Jesus is a mythological figure. It raises a lot of questions about why well educated people have arrived at a point where they are so ignorant of history, and they can't recall how they became indoctrinated with this belief. It's also been interesting that most Christians I speak with don't fully realize their non-Christian friends hold as historical fact the non-existence of Jesus. The Passion has generated a lot of illuminating discussion with all parties.
Rambling here, but I would be interested in your transcript should you have one.
It's not an easy philosophical path to enunciate, because in some ways you are trying to prove a negative through your sense of agnosticism towards the Christ. Above and beyond that, I personally get repelled by the bitterness that some Deists hold towards Christianity, but, then again, I am also repelled by the bitterness that some Christians hold against other Christian sects. I simply seek the truth and have little desire to get drawn in by the underlying politics - but in this day and age, that's almost impossible to avoid, as my natural allies are much more in the camp of the faithful than those marching against such.
This would be a very good thing if he meant that they had "gotten beyond" the soft, non-dogmatic, non-denominational evangelism of Lewis and had matured to the stage of real Christian faith with a belief in dogmas that are true, and a corresponding belief that opposite statements are false.
firsts at Oxford in Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, AND English Literature, who in the parish had written for the Oxford History of English Literature, etc. etc. etc.
This is no recommendation for a Christian. Seems like most of the people from Lewis' generation who met these criteria turned out to be communist spies and/or homosexuals. I must at least give Lewis credit that HE did not believe in a Christianity for the Oxford dons.
He was criticizing Lewis as too unsophisticated and not "intellectual enough" for "this parish." That's what popped my cork.
And as for Lewis's faith, I think you're dead wrong. This is a man that came a long way, having begun in a bigotted Ulster Protestant family, the same sort of folks that published that attack on "The Passion" as "papistical" earlier this week. If you believe that he was a wishy-washy, "soft, non-dogmatic, nondenominational" Christian, you simply cannot have read him carefully. During his life, he was criticized for being too dogmatic, and that is even more the case now as so many Anglicans (and Catholics too for that matter) have become ever more wishy-washy.
Go read his Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce, and then reconsider your judgment.
Thanks, I feel the same way. Faith without belief is a hollow shell.
Let's just say even before I saw the film, I stopped questioning and began believing. It's your journey to make. Don't close your mind or your heart.
I'm always open to the opinions of others, unless they post on DU.
Am presently reading "Everlasting Man"--
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.