The Passion of the Christ: A Beautifully Offensive Work of Art

When a movie I have been anticipating is finally released, I go to great lengths to avoid learning too much about the plot. I don't want anything to be given away that might spoil the cinematic experience. I want to be a participant in the storytelling process rather than a mere spectator.

Even when I am somewhat familiar with the story - the Lord of the Rings trilogy is one example - I can maintain a certain element of surprise by refusing to listen to know-it-all movie critics who think they have a better understanding of my likes and dislikes.

However, when I went to see The Passion of the Christ, I was already very familiar with the subject matter. I knew all the main characters and their backgrounds. I knew exactly how each scene would unfold. As a Christian, I knew how the story was going to end - or, more accurately, begin.

If that weren't enough, I had read dozens of movie reviews, many of them describing scenes in great detail. For all practical purposes, there was no reason at all for me to see this motion picture.

I went anyway. Though I was intimately familiar with the gospel accounts of the crucifixion, the movie made a tremendous impact on me and proved to be an eye-opener in more ways than one.

A good artist is someone who is able to make tangible the intangible, and a true work of art takes something that would ordinarily defy description and put it into terms that mere mortals can understand. Picture the most magnificent painting you have ever seen, or imagine the most beautiful piece of music you have ever heard, and you will know exactly what I mean.

Mel Gibson accomplished this with The Passion. He was able to take an event as indescribable as the crucifixion and present it in such a way that makes an indelible impression.

The vivid images of an innocent man being tortured to death provided the shock Gibson was going for. There in all its grotesqueness was an artist's depiction of what it must have been like for millennia of sin and wickedness to be poured out on one individual. Through the sounds of splattering blood and ripping flesh I could hear members of the audience gasping and crying. Even though every single one of us in that theater knew the violence was simulated, that didn't make it any less disturbing. What's more, I believe that despite Gibson's great attention to detail, his version of the crucifixion was most likely a bit tame compared to the actual event.

As I sat riveted to the screen, I suddenly realized why so many people found this movie offensive. No, it isn't anti-Semitic. Those who have leveled that charge have either never seen the movie or are simply covering up their abject hatred for Christianity and the gospel. The reason they were offended is that they saw the truth come to life on the big screen - and people tend to lash out in anger when confronted with the truth. Paul reminds us in his letter to the church at Corinth that "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18).

I know it is only a movie. I know that it isn't God-breathed scripture. But there is something to be said of one's ability to bring history to life.

I believe that people were offended because they fail to understand how Christians can find such joy and happiness in an act as hideous as the crucifixion. In Psalm 118:24 we read of the anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice: "This is the day the Lord has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." Hebrews 12:2 speaks of Jesus enduring the cross "for the joy that was set before him," and 1 Peter 4:13 tells us to "rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy." That kind of joy is something the world cannot understand.

Many critics complained that the movie didn't provide an adequate explanation for the reason behind Jesus' suffering. Why did so many people hate him? Why did he subject himself willingly to such excruciating pain? Why didn’t the movie focus more on his ministry of love and forgiveness?

Oh, it truly is amazing how utterly ignorant people can be. The gruesome act of the crucifixion was the ultimate act of love and forgiveness played out before all humanity! It was the culmination of Jesus' entire life and ministry. Beyond that, it is the one, blessed event to which all of scripture points.

As shocking as it may sound, The Passion of the Christ is perhaps the most beautiful love story ever filmed. It portrays a love so powerful that it hurts to even look at it. It shows us a love so overwhelming and so suffocating that sinful creatures cannot help but recoil from it in horror. The critics whined that they wanted to see more of Christ's message of love and forgiveness; for two whole hours it was right there in front of them in all of its crimson glory.

The beauty of the crucifixion is that it is the embodiment of God's love. The apostle John captures the essence of this truth: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:1, 14).

Christ made flesh was God's ultimate masterpiece. The Master Artist made tangible the intangible, and in doing so provided His children with something we could never hope to achieve on our own: eternal life.

Yes, The Passion of the Christ is only a movie, but it reminds us of the offensive beauty of God's love. It also delivers the unforgettable message that it is a love that cannot be ignored.

Are You Anti-Christian? (An Open Letter to Roger Friedman)

Dear Mr. Friedman,

I just read your most recent hit piece, "The Poisonous Legacy of The Passion," blasting Mel Gibson for promoting anti-Semitism.

You wrote:

Is the movie anti-Semitic? Several reviewers have already said it is. I can tell you this: Thanks to Gibson, when non-Jews around the world now see the Jewish prayer shawl, the tallis, on the heads of praying Jews, they will think, "Oh yeah, those were worn by the angry crowds in The Passion who insisted that Jesus be killed and then patiently watched him be tortured to death." Thanks to Gibson, we are reminded that Jesus' friend Judas - a Jew - was easily sold out for some gold that was thrown at him in exchange for his betrayal. It's the return of the money-grubbing Jew, straight out of the old anti-Semite playbook.

Bravo, Mr. Friedman. You managed to sink to a new low. You dance around the issue in an attempt to make it appear that your only problem is with Gibson's film, but some of us just aren't buying it. We're not that stupid. It is clear that you think Christianity - or at least the New Testament - is inherently anti-Semitic. How else can we interpret your reaction to a movie based on a factual, historical event?

You also wrote:

We have no idea why Christ is so reviled by the Jews, what he's done to earn their anger, or what he's done to earn Gibson's respect. From the moment the film begins, Jesus is simply a target for unbridled, unrestrained bloodlust...Since we don't know who Jesus was before the day of his death, and since all we see are rabid packs of Jews in shawls who want him dead, followed by the long merciless death itself, what is Gibson's point? That Christ died for our sins? Or that he was murdered by crazy, vicious mobs who didn't understand him?

The Passion depicts the final hours leading up to the crucifixion. It is a snapshot of a particular event in history. I am sure Mel Gibson assumed that the viewer would have at least a rudimentary understanding of some of the background information, so that might explain why you failed to understand the hatred many of the Jews at that time - especially the religious leaders - had for Jesus. In essence, he posed a radical threat to their entire belief system by claiming divine status as Messiah and "King of the Jews." Considered a blasphemer and an instigator, he had to be dealt with severely and permanently. Yes, the Roman government carried out the execution, but the Jews who had gathered to witness the event were the ones crying out, "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27:25).

There were, however, many Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah. In case you forgot, Jesus himself was a Jew, as were most of his followers. If you had any knowledge at all of the Bible, you might have grasped that.

Let me turn the tables for a minute and ask you this: when Steven Spielberg released Schindler's List, were you just as confused by the fact that the Jews in the movie were so reviled by the Nazis? After all, the movie didn't offer a clear explanation for the brutal persecution of the Jews. Did you sit there, staring at the screen, wondering why these people were being rounded up and slaughtered? Why did so many Germans want them dead? Were you disappointed that Spielberg didn't do a better job outlining the series of events leading up to the Holocaust? Probably not. I'm sure you and everyone else who saw it had a basic idea of what was going on and why.

But I am curious. Did you worry about the possible anti-German behavior Schindler's List would inspire? No, I'll bet you thought it was an important movie addressing one of the darkest periods of the 20th century that should have been seen by as many people as possible. You probably even thought that the graphic violence only heightened the movie's impact. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem with your position is that you expect us to believe that this dramatization of Christ's ultimate act of love and sacrifice on the cross will ignite the fires of anti-Semitism. You want us to think that those who are sick and twisted enough to commit acts of violence against another human being are the kinds of people who will flock to see this movie. Come on, Mr. Friedman. You're smarter than that.

I submit that your hateful words - along with those of Abraham Foxman of the ADL - actually have more potential for fueling anti-Semitism than this film ever will. If you ask me, I think you owe Christians and Jews everywhere an apology.

Racism and American Hypersensitivity

In an effort to avoid being branded racists, Americans have grown increasingly sensitive to how the different races, ethnic groups, cultures and religions that make up our society relate to one another. This is not to say that racism is non-existent, but I do believe that our threshold for tolerating certain types of behavior has been lowered significantly.

You may recall the flack talk show host Rush Limbaugh received for his comments about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. In pointing out the amount of media attention McNabb was receiving, Limbaugh said, "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well." No sooner had those words passed from Limbaugh's multi-million dollar mouth than charges of racism began to fly, and Limbaugh was eventually pressured to resign from his job at ESPN.

While not surprising, the response to Limbaugh was unwarranted. Not once did he hurl a racist insult at McNabb, nor did he call the media racist. He was merely focusing on what he believed to be a slight bias on the part of the media.

One of the best examples of hypersensitivity was the reaction to a brief speech made by Trent Lott at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party in 2002. The senator from Mississippi said, "I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Everyone was in an uproar. The general consensus was that since Strom Thurmond ran for president as a member of a party that had a segregationist platform, it was relatively easy to determine what Lott meant by "these problems."

The ensuing shockwave rattled the highest levels of the minority community. Kweisi Mfume, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (yes, the organization still uses the term "colored"), called Lott's remarks "hateful bigotry that has no place in the halls of the Congress." Shortly afterward, Republicans began distancing themselves from Lott, essentially sacrificing him on the altar of tolerance to appease the god of political correctness.

If the Trent Lott fiasco proved anything, it is that one can be a racist without uttering a single word about race or ethnicity. It also demonstrated that even the slightest, most minute impression of the possibility of racial intolerance is considered an unpardonable crime against humanity.

Naturally, a topic like this cannot be discussed without addressing anti-Semitism, racism's ugly sister. Anti-Semitism is another one of those charges that are bandied about with little forethought or debate. In fact, most of those employing the term are unable to explain what it actually means. By today's standards, anti-Semitism includes everything from jokes about ham to the horrible genocide carried out by the Nazis in the '30s and '40s. Talk about a huge disparity!

Just look at the controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's new film, The Passion of the Christ. In a Feb. 6 speech to the Anti-Defamation League National Executive Committee, ADL Director Abraham Foxman said, "For almost 2,000 years in Western civilization, four words legitimized, rationalized, and fueled anti-Semitism: 'The Jews killed Christ'...For hundreds of years those four words - acted out, spoken out, sermonized out - inspired and legitimized pogroms, inquisitions and expulsions." Foxman believes that Gibson's film portrays Jews as a bloodthirsty mob of Christ-killers and fears that it may spark an increase in anti-Semitic behavior around the world.

Many who have attended advance screenings of the movie have noted Gibson's great care in staying faithful to the accounts found in the New Testament - and that, I think, is the problem. Scripture records that the multitude of Jews who had gathered before Pontius Pilate demanded that Jesus be crucified (Matt. 27:22). They even cried out, "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27:25). My suspicion is that the ADL simply has a problem with the gospel itself.

Gibson recently removed the blood curse line from the film's dialog, but that doesn't seem to matter. The controversy is now centering on Mel's father. In an interview scheduled to air on Monday, Feb. 23, Hutton Gibson is quoted as saying that the Holocaust is "maybe not all fiction - but most of it is." Foxman has already made the claim that the elder Gibson is "a classical anti-Semite who is full of conspiracy theories and hate and perversion," so I don't think members of the ADL will be changing their position anytime soon. They certainly won't seek to judge the movie objectively based on its artistic merits. Mel's father is anti-Semitic, which means Mel must be anti-Semitic, which means anyone going to see the movie must also be anti-Semitic.

I cannot help but wonder how we ended up as a nation of hypersensitive, maladjusted, intellectual weaklings. Is it because we have grown so completely bored that we actually have to create problems where they don’t exist just to keep life interesting? Are we so dissatisfied with our own lives that we feel we must destroy the lives of others?

Indeed, when it comes to volatile issues like racism and anti-Semitism, there are real dragons we need to slay. But how can we do that while focusing all of our energy on those areas where none exist?

In an ironic twist, our unhealthy obsession with "tolerance" has only made us more intolerant, and the wedges we claim to be removing from between diverse groups are only being driven deeper. We are even lectured by public service announcements on television and radio that telling a joke referencing someone's race or sexual orientation is tantamount to committing an act of violence.

What kind of future can we hope to have if this continues? How long will it be before we begin to criminalize thought? With as much attention as we pay to the color of our skin, one would think we might notice how thin it has become.

In Defense of Janet Jackson...Sort Of

Everyone is upset with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake - and with good reason. But am I supposed to pretend that the sight of some punk kid groping an older woman was the worst thing I saw on television last Sunday?...

(Full commentary here.)

Heresy vs. Schism

You will recall that V. Gene Robinson, despite being an admitted homosexual, was elected bishop-designate of New Hampshire this past summer at the Episcopal General Convention in Minneapolis, Minn. Conservative Episcopalians have since been very vocal about their opposition to Robinson's confirmation, and many fear that it may lead to a split in the church.

During last week's annual meeting of Virginia's Episcopal diocese, the Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee called upon church members to put aside their convictions and embrace the open sinfulness of the church's leadership ranks. Well, he didn't use those words exactly, but that is in essence what he was implying when he said, "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. For as a heretic, you are only guilty of a wrong opinion. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time."

First of all, Rev. Lee mistakenly labels the two conflicting groups. Notice he uses the terms "heretic" and "schismatic" as opposed to "heretic" and "orthodox." Notice also that he immediately condemns the schismatic (i.e., the one threatening to break away from the congregation because of irreconcilable doctrinal differences) while giving a free pass to the heretic (i.e., the one who caused the rift in the first place).

Secondly, the good reverend makes the grave mistake of confusing heresy with blasphemy. Heresy is an opinion or practice that is contrary to what the church generally accepts as truth. Blasphemy, on the other hand, is an outright contempt for God and a blatant disregard for His commands - and that is exactly what Robinson's supporters are guilty of committing.

What Rev. Lee doesn't realize is that when a church's leadership has become so morally corrupt that blasphemy is allowed to supplant sound biblical doctrine, the people are left with little choice. Their only viable option - and I mean this quite literally - is to get the hell out of there before it's too late.