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.
Oh really? Here is what the editor of his "collected works," and a personal friend of his, says:
"I should now like to record to Lewis' credit a positive restraint which he put upon all his theological works. As he was minded to write only about "mere Christianity," so he steadfastly refused to write about differences of belief. [emphasis in the original] He knew that discussions about differences in doctrine or ritual were seldom edifying. At least he considered it far too dangerous a luxury for himself -- far better stick to that "enormous common ground."So perhaps it's not a matter of my not reading him carefully, but a matter of Lewis not being a Catholic. He was a non-denominational protestant. Some act surprised that he never became a Catholic, but the fact is that he did not, and in fact he never showed any inclination to do so. Perhaps you sympathize with Lewis because while the scandal of ordaining homosexual bishops has driven you out of the Anglican church, you still have not become a Catholic.He made no exception even in his conversation. I remember the first and only time I mentioned "low" and "high" churchmanship in his presence. He looked at me as though I had offered him poison. "We must never discuss that," he said, gently but firmly. [emphasis in the original]
Go read his Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce, and then reconsider your judgment.
This sounds rather like a command. In fact, it sounds rather like an anglican/evangelical version of the great command. Instead of "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations," it is "Go therefore and read C.S. Lewis." Sorry, but I only have time to read Catholic authors, especially on religious topics.
I didn't intend to give you some Protestant version of the Great Commission . . . let me try again. You have insufficient basis upon which to criticize and condemn Lewis with such a broad brush, particularly when you have not even read his own words but merely what others have said about him at second hand. From a cursory reading of his writings - and I gave you the places to look - what you said about him and his work is utterly false.
You don't want to read Lewis, you want to spend your time reading Catholic authors, fine. Suit yourself. But then don't turn around and criticize someone you know nothing about and refuse to learn anything about. Only somebody who had never read him could say what you said.
And you're wrong again about my not becoming a Catholic. I'm off in five minutes to Confession, where I will pray for forgiveness of my uncharitable feelings towards you.
I'm confused. It seemed like only a few weeks ago that I wrote to you about our parish priest who was a convert from the Anglican church because you were considering the transition yourself. Did it happen that quickly? The Catholic converts that I know went through a very intense, very lengthy conversion process.
Probably the same thing that made the music of Bach and Beethoven the most universally respected in history,true inspiration.Their art was inspired by the exact same thing that inspires Mel Gibson.
Anti-Christian critics in their day probably mocked them the same way todays critics mock Mel.
I will be happy to provide you with anything I write.
In the meantime if you are so inclined just check this site out I think you might find it most interesting: Khouse.org
Thanks again for your insights.
You have no idea what basis I have to criticize C.S. Lewis. Just because the words of his own personal friend and editor so perfectly summed up the precise point that I was making does not mean that I haven't read anything he actually wrote.
From a cursory reading of his writings - and I gave you the places to look - what you said about him and his work is utterly false.
Sorry, but no matter how you try to brush off the words of his hand-selected editor, "with a grain of salt," you cannot pretend that it is not true that C.S. Lewis was not a Catholic, and that he did not choose to take a stand on any contested points of doctrine. And even if you gave me a thousand "places to look," nothing can change the fact that he died "outside the Church, where there is no salvation."
If you like, you can prove me wrong. Please show me where C.S. Lewis' articulated his belief (or lack of such) in the Immaculate Conception. I'll be very interested to find out what he had to say.
You don't want to read Lewis, you want to spend your time reading Catholic authors, fine. Suit yourself.
It's not a question of suiting myself, it's a question of being a Catholic. Catholics do not look to schismatics and heretics for knowledge of the faith. In fact, on the contrary, they recognize the undeniable truth, which has been articulated many times by the magisterium, that such people represent a proximate danger to one's faith. The Catholic faith is NOT a matter of personal preference.
But then don't turn around and criticize someone you know nothing about and refuse to learn anything about. Only somebody who had never read him could say what you said.
Why then does his own editor agree with me? Has he never read any of C.S. Lewis either? And how is C.S. Lewis able so miraculously to appeal to protestants all across the spectrum, while also trying to attract Catholics? Isn't it because he avoids the sticky situations where one must take a stand and stake one's life on it? Here's another place where you can prove me wrong: What was C.S. Lewis' view on the Catholic martyrs of England, like St. Edmund Campion for example? His contemporary Evelyn Waugh wrote a whole book on Campion's life. What did C.S. Lewis have to say about someone like Campion who was not content with "mere Christianity" but who was willing to suffer torture and to die for one specific faith? I'll be interested to learn from someone like yourself who knows so much more about it than I do.
And you're wrong again about my not becoming a Catholic.
My point is that one doesn't become a Catholic in 1 month. And one never becomes a Catholic if they maintain an attitude of superiority, rather than an attitude of humble submission.
I'm off in five minutes to Confession, where I will pray for forgiveness of my uncharitable feelings towards you.
A wonderful example which we would all do well to imitate.
"Pot, meet Kettle."
So, we're registered in the parish and on the strength. I made my first Confession this afternoon (in fear and trembling) and will go rejoicing to receive the Sacrament tomorrow. Deo gratias!
I take this to mean that the Eucharist will be administered to non-Catholic Christians if they are in danger of dying and have been denied the right in their own church. You have not mentioned such exigent circumstances.
Seriously, in the rather stringent examination of our faith that we underwent, the only points of difference that arose were the validity of Anglican Orders and the supremacy of the See of Peter. And as I told Monsignor, I've read Apostolicae Curae and I am ready to acknowledge the validity of the points made there. (If you can find me three Catholics - or Episcopalians either - who have actually read that document, I'll be surprised. It's my history background. Also the fact that we have seen this one coming for quite some time. We've had an inkling of trouble to come ever since Spong, the new prayer book, and the ordination of women, and certainly since when the whole New Hampshire thing began to gather steam - must have been over a year ago, some time in the early spring of 2003.)
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.