Passion of the Christ

Along with BillDayson, I am not a Christian. However, I do plan on seeing it.

I am too much a fan of Gibson's other films, and too admiring of anyone who can dissent from conformity and be a success not to!

Along those lines, last Friday I heard a remarkable statement: the right-wing radio firebrand, Michael Savage, said to Mel that - during the climax of Christ's torture by the Romans - he suddenly saw the necessity for the mission of the ACLU...!

Mind you, he meant the ACLU founded by Roger Baldwin, who wanted it to play the watchdog role against government abuses (such as prisoners like Christ) - not the instrument of PC conformity it has become. (Savage said Gibson and friends were very surprised by his reaction - but he did not reveal whether they were converted by it.)

In other Hollywood history films, I can decidedly recommend last fall's "Luther."
Although biographical dirt was not dished out by this biopic, the tranformative essence of the modern era can be told as a footnote of the Protestant Reformation outlined in "Luther." It is a period of history that ended on September 11, 2001, if not with the Fall of Communism a decade before.

--Orson

 

Exactly. And my understanding is that this is one reason why Gibson's film circulated in various pre-release cuts for a time: fidelity to the (arguably anti-semitic) synoptic Gospels versus the Truth as Christians see it? - that Christ was sacrificed by and for all of humanity, not just by Jews or Romans.

In the end, Gibson opted for the latter depiction, I believe.

--Orson

 

Uncle Janko writes:

"I will not see this movie and have advised my parishioners not to see it--not least because their money would be going to enrich a man whose version (per-version?) of Roman Catholicism is filled with hatred toward our church. Just as we are not anti-Semites, so also we are not masochists."

Wow! - a strong opinion. And not an unreasonable opinion, uncle.

But I hope much of the world sees it as the climax of Christian charity - as opposed to, say Muslim inhumanity (eg conversion by force and intimidation through terror).

The world could gain from such an object lesson.

--Orson

 

My 15 year old daughter came and talked to me about it. She very much wants to see it. What I have read about it so far leads me to believe it paints an accurate picture of the historical portion of the film. I have not yet been able to decide if it is appropriate for a 15 year old.


My reply: I have two sons, age 11 and 14. Normally, I would not allow them to watch an R rated movie containing the violence that this movie is reported to portray. That being said, I believe I have a responsibility to them, and to Christ, to make clear to them the extent of His sacrifice. They have watched other movies about Christ's passion, and they have read portions of the gospels with me, but a realistic look at the suffering that Christ endured, while disturbing, should help them grasp the magnitude of what He did. Before allowing my kids to see it I will first watch the movie to make sure the truth of the gospels are accurately portrayed. Children remember things visually, so there is a pretty good chance this movie will become a cornerstone of their gospel. As a responsible adult, and Christian, I have to make certain there is nothing in the movie that would distort the truth.

Tony

 

Like Orson, I am not religous and not a christian but I will see the movie.

I am taking the Ludwig von Mises point of view on this...(when asked about pro-keynesian economic programs in universities he said "read as much as you can, not just what you agree with but those things that you do not agree with. But read everything critically. You cannot know anything unless you know both sides.") To judge something before it is completely understood and/or experienced first-hand would that not be arrogance? And to advise people against seeing it would that no mean that those being advised are of lesser knowledge than the one giving the advice when neither the advisor or the advisee have actually seen the film? curious.

As for the part where Gibson's dad is an anti-semite and anything else that might be distasteful and attributing the possibility of that to Mel does not really make sense. For instance, Heinrich Marx was a classical liberal (libertarian, jew who converted to Lutheran) had a son Karl Marx, whose views (actual marxist or perversions thereof) brought about the biggest slaughter of people in the history of the world. The point is that Heinrich and Karl were at opposite ends. and to say that Mel is the same as his father without actually knowing either, is that not placing a label on him or categorizing him...didn't Martin Luther King, inspired by Ghandi, inspired by Thoreau say something about that?

 

When the Passion is used as a means to condone and inflame anti-semitic rhetoric the values of those who are inflamed must be evaluated. We don't raise the flag against the Italians as Pilate could have said No and the Romans did the actual flogging, crowning with thorns, and crucification. The Passion of Christ is a powerful one and I am looking forward to seeing the movie.

John

 

Yes, but if Heinrich and Karl had gone in together on organizing a political party jointly, as Hutton and Mel have gone in together on organizing a private parish, uncontaminated by run-of-the-mill Roman Catholics and reflecting their shared distinctive theological views--views which copy a particular reading of RC theology from a time before "Nostra Aetate"--it would raise serious questions. As I said in my original post, it is possible that neither Gibson nor his movie are anti-Semitic. Possible, that is, that he has gone against views he has never repudiated, and possible that he has bucked an explicit trend within the very narrow subset of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism to which he otherwise competely adheres.

I have parishioners who are illiterate. There is a series of videotapes called, I think, "The Visual Bible". This project has filmed the Gospel of Matthew, using actors to enact the narratives and containing only the words of the Bible in the NIV translation. I readily see the value of a movie presentation of the gospel record and I use this "Visual Bible" as a way of doing text-free Bible study.

I am, so far as my parishioners are concerned, not responsible for immersing them in the free market of ideas. As they are scarcely cloistered or bereft of cable TV, they can certainly do this on their own, if they care to do so. What I am responsible for doing is presenting to them the pure Word and Sacrament, warning them by the Law and comforting them by the Gospel. Only a fool would deny the anti-Semitism of certain famous utterances by Dr Luther, and only a maniac would deny the consequences of anti-Semitism (from other sources) in German history. Because of our history--not Gibson's--extra caution is called for. Because of Gibson's theological views independent of any anti-Semitism--views which dismiss us as evil heretics, deny the reality of our preaching and the validity of our sacraments, and hold us in the deepest contempt--why should we help fund such a fellow? To demonstrate our magnanimity to our own prideful self-congratulation? Because it's "broadening"? Bosh.

It is possible that a man might go to a whorehouse to listen to the piano player, that is, that his visit to the brothel might not be an occasion of sin. Similarly, millions may go to see this movie in all innocence. But taking a dim view of the "old Adam" in all of us, or at least in us Gnesio-Lutherans, I would advise a parishioner with a hankering for good piano playing to find it somewhere else, even if the madam protests (overmuch?) that she's only in the business for the pleasure of hearing Schubert played live.

So with this movie. I am frankly unconvinced by Mel Gibson's denials. Anybody can deny anything, especially if there's money in it. Still, his denials of anti-Semitism may well be true and sincere and well-meant. One can leave such things ultimately to God for judgment, while exercising, on account of our own sinful nature and taking account of public statements publicly recorded, a most cautious vigilance.

If you go see this thing, I hope you get a clear picture of the sufferings of Christ on your behalf. I hope it is an occasion of good and not an occasion for sin. You are outside my tradition and its historical nexus, within which my choice and my recommendations to parishioners are made. Best wishes to you.

 

Uncle Janko,

While I appreciate your point of view, I also would like to hear your ideas on just how far to take this thinking. If you are to have nothing to do with Mel because of what you THINK he might believe, then do you carry this type if thinking over into all the rest of your life? I mean, if you did it would never end. Do you frequent places or buy products from places that are owned by people who MAY have fathers that are evil in any kind of way? If you really hold these beliefs then I would think that eventually you would be confined to your basement without any contact to the outside world or technology. Just at question.

 

I am sure nearly all of us have had family members who espoused racist/hateful views. Does that make us racist/hateful?

I was born in Germany. My mother is German and all my maternal relatives are German. I am sure many were NAZI sympatherizers. Does that make me a NAZI or anti-Semite?

My father was born in Mississippi. Many of his family were ardent racists and white supremacists who voted for like-minded candidates. Many were diehard Wallace supporters.

Does this make me a racist or white supremacist?

Guilt by association, birth, or genetics is WRONG! Way wrong!

 

PAX to show "The Making of Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ"

The PAX network will air, on 2/22/04, at 9 p.m. EST, "The Making of Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ."

 

Is it true that they could be doing a remake of "The Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders" or am I dreaming. I vote we start the discussion on that one. How historically accurate was the original?

As my wife says to me, frequently "It's just a movie." Historical dramas are intended to be all screwed up, in relation to detail. Whether Mel met his personal objectives in making the film may be uncertain but controversy puts bums in seats.

 

Any movie about Christ will be and always has been controversial even among us Christians because of the great theological diversity among us.

 

===

Will you stop attacking my balloons with needles Dennis? And does your wife know you lust after cheer leaders? Shame, shame on you

 

Bill Grover wrote:
But I don't understand Gibson not agreeing, when it was suggested, to put some sort of postscript at the end as: "This film is not blaming the Jewish people for the death of Jesus."

Bill,

I just finished watching the TV interview with Diane Sawyer. Honestly, it looks to me like she seriously doesn't get it at all. I think of the anti-Semitic accusation the same way.

As you are certainly aware, there are different ways of doing Christian theology. Mel says something in the interview like, "you either take the Bible entirely as true, or just forget it." This means, to me, Mel is not primarily interested in a theology of "correlation," ie., one that would seek to contextualize theological truth in general terms that are already acceptable and authoritative in the dominant culture. He seems to view theology mostly as self-description, perhaps like Johnathan Edwards or Karl Barth.

When Diane asked him this question, "why don't you..." put a note at the end so as to remove culpability for the Jews... he kind of looked up and thought a minute. "because it would mean there was something wrong with my film" that he had to apologize for. That lack of concern for apology ("apolog-etics") is theology AS self-description. I can hear Karl Barth saying "let's not concede too much to unbelief."

So I think Mel just wants to portray the Gospel accounts as they are. To confront the culture with the dramatic aspect of the Gospel, the heart of the Gospel. It's the "figure it out for yourself" strategy. Personally, I love it.

This may sound crazy, since Gibson is RC. In my mind, since there are plenty within Roman Catholicism that share the same kind of attitude about theology (e.g., Hans Kung), it's possible for Mel too.

Chris

 

Thanks Bill,

I couldn't agree more that the story doesn't stop there. It goes on to the resurrection, Pentecost, Paul and so on. Of course, it can be taken wrong if its out of the context of the whole gospel story.

Are you sure that's Mel's job? Bill, the expectations we bring to a cultural text like a movie are different than those we bring to Scripture. If I put the demands of a close Scriptural read on my church bulletin, I would be consistently disappointed. If every Christian artist that existed had to make things comprehensive-- Rembrandt would have been a heretic by temperment.

I think I see the culture, here, seeking to explain the story away in terms of Mel's relationship with his father, ant-Semitism, etc. etc... these are all categories that are familiar to us, that we pride ourselves in our philo-Semitism, and so on. We want some category to use to explain the story in terms of our culture, to make it about Mel rather than about Jesus. To make it about about progress in ethnic relations rather than about Jesus. To somehow escape the problem of Jesus. Bill, you can't guarantee against misinterpretation in this case. You can't foolproof the story so that the Holy Spirit doesn't have to work. And He can work in artistic presentations that are not "as comprehensive" as the Scriptural text.

I think the problem is that our culture isn't even interested in the context, the Gospel story. I think Mel is making the movie to simply ask the question that Jesus asked Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" Jesus' affliction on the cross, including his choice to forgive shows that he is certainly unique among men. It didn't take the Roman Centurion much context to simply conclude, "surely this man was the Son of God."

I also believe contemporary evangelicalism has lost a great deal of touch with the humanity of Christ. I don't mean theologically, necessarily, but in terms of how we talk about Christ, church practices, books and sermons, etc. It seems to me that we need such a vivid portrait of the lamb of God to understand, in the way that God intended for us to, the extent and brutality of our own sin.

Blessings brother,

Chris (who, will as always eventually stand corrected by Bill).

 

Bakersfield?

Thanks for asking man. As always, Bakersfield is content to have a nice house, cabin in the mountains maybe, and not really think too hard.

I like it here, but I don't think i could live here forever. Rachel and I are starving for big city recreation.

Blessings,

Chris

 

===

Chris:


1-----Are they? IMO if Gibson believes that his production is an authentic representation , and wishes others to see it as that, then it needs to be tested and by testing affirmed or disaffirmed as such.

2----- No, but why not avoid as much as one can by a very simple ps?

3------Theologically as well that is being widely denied . Instead of , "Behold, the Man" we have , "Behold, the God acting like a Man." To reach the unity of Person they trample on both the humanity of Christ and on the immutability of God.

4-------ditto to you

5-------yeah, right

 

Yup, that's me, escaping the problem of Jesus, liberal that I am.