1

It's frustrating to listen to all the ADL folks scream about what this film will do to them for the very reason that Joe stated:We understand what Christs mission was all about. When I listen to them scream about Anti-Semitism it makes me want to throttle them. Not because they are Jews, but because they are so ignorant.

2

I've been less struck by secular critics view re the potential anti-semitism. What I have found most intriguing is the idea that Gibson failed to portray the usual "teachings" of Jesus (as if we need another). In most reviews I've read by the mainstream critics, I get the strong sense they are longing for the days of the blonde, blue-eyed Jesus who gathers the children around and offers his loving wisdom. In other words, the Jesus whose teachings are so wonderful that the fact he was crucified can be completely ignored. Here's my favorite quote:

""The Passion of the Christ'' should have left audiences in a state of exaltation. Instead it just leaves audiences exhausted."

I think that was actually part of the idea (and also presumes that because he felt no exaltation, neither did anyone else.) To put it plainly: it wasn't what he wanted to see.

I truly have never seen so many reviews that seem to wish for the biblical epics of the 50s and 60s. From reviewers who rave over the artistic abilities of Quentin Tarantino. Go figure.

3

"When I listen to them scream about Anti-Semitism it makes me want to throttle them."

Nice.

As for your reactions, Joe, just a couple of comments:

Not all the reviewers have agreed with the complaints of anti-Semitism, and many of the ones I've seen who do think it is problematic write more along the lines of "this is bad because true anti-Semites could use it as ammunition", rather than offering an accusation of actual, intentional anti-Semitism in the film itself. I think opinion is divided, here.

Second, notice that your message of "grace" is one that is not explicitly in the story. The standard Christian interpretation of the meaning of Jesus's death is that we are all responsible, but the story as it stands in the Bible is simply that he was shunted around among several power-figures until he was finally killed, for reasons that all have to do with political/religious issues of the day. There is some talk about who will bear responsibility, but it is all first-person ("I can find no wrong in him"; "His death be upon us"). Nobody in the Gospels actually says "Everyone in the world past, present, and future is personally responsible for Jesus's death as punishment for their sins, including the ones that haven't been committed yet." Jesus himself didn't say that (and especially not in the time period of the film, from Gethsemane to the cross - in fact, he goes out of his way to avoid saying exactly who or what he is). So, that message is only going to be seen by Christians who already know the story and its accepted meaning. Anyone who's just watching the story as a story will not get that - not because they're anti-Christian, but because that's not what the story says.

4

Keith,

I agree with you. I'm not saying that the secular critics should view it the way Christians do but simply trying to explain why they don't. Though I haven't seen the film yet, I doubt that it is adequate in itself for understanding the deeper theological meaning behind the crucifixion.

This is definitely a film that will be most beneficial for those who are already familiar with story.

5

Joe,

I'm very interested to hear what you have to say about it after you have seen it. My junior high age daughter wants to see it with us (my wife and I) and we would like that, too. However I remember when I was a boy that my mother was concerned about my brother who loved violent movies (shoot 'em ups and spaghetti westerns) until she took him to see a re-release of Gone With The Wind. The quiet, yet very real, violence of the soldiers dieing in the city square in Atlanta affected him profoundly where none of the other more graphic films had. Then she new that he could tell the difference.

I am concerned that the very real and personal violence toward Jesus, whom my daughter has grown up with, might be a little much for a thirteen year old. All we have to go on is reviews by people who either have not seen it or cannot help grinding their axes on it. It is a film that I would like my daughter to see but I know that it will be available on dvd soon enough and can wait until she is a more appropriate age if it must.

Sean

6

Roger Ebert worte up a very well thought review. If only all the talking heads could be this toughtful.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html

Sean-Check out the note on the bottom of the review. He feels the violence is in the NC17 range. That might answer you question.

And the comment about throttling them was meant to be humerous.

7

Sean...

Having seen the movie last night, my inclination is to say that this remarkable movie is, generally speaking, too much for anyone under 14 years of age. I know there's nothing magical about that number; we don't suddenly become more mature and insightful and flush with wisdom with the onset of another year, but still...

I noticed there were some young people in the audience last night and it would have been interesting to chat with them afterward, but I was pretty much derailled by the end of the movie and it took a while before I could even converse with my wife. A rational conversation with a 13-year-old would have been beyond my limited capabilities.

Despite the caveat, the good news is this is a movie for the ages. It won't lose anything in a year, or even a hundred years.

By the way, I don't have children, so I'm likely wrong about everything I just wrote. God looked at my wife's and my lives and decided in His infinite wisdom to terminate the gne pool right on the spot. We have two Labrador retrievers, but my sense is this is a movie that would be utterly lost on them.

8

Joe et. al.,

I am seeing the film in two hours. The ladies at my wife's bible sutdy this morning that have seen it state that "you will never take communion or wear a cross the same way again." I am looking forward to blogging on the movie (if I am up to it) this evening.

On the subject of the reviews - - I have been very intentionally avoiding them this past week so as not to jade my viewing.

9

Joe,

Contrary to what you said in reference to grace("Not that we christians have it, while others don't"),I believe that it is precisely the opposite. While grace is extended to believers and non-believers alike,it is we,as Christians who have accepted God's grace, that are the only benefactors of our Lord's grace.

10

"and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" Zechariah

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

11

Keith,

If you mean that I am not culpable for Christ's death, then in a sense, you are right. He chose to die for me and I did not intend for him to die. Nevertheless, I am responsible for Christ's death in the sense that he would not have needed or wanted to die if I was not a sinner. It was my sin and his love for me that caused him to die on the cross. An example illustrates, imagine a child running in front of a train and the child's father sacrificing himself to save the child. In the sense of culpability, the child bears none. The child will still, no doubt, feel a sense of responsibility. If the child had been told not to play on the tracks, then the child will feel guilt. The child will understand that the father payed the price of the child's foolish disobedience. In this way, I am responsible for Christ's death.

Hebrews 6:4-6, "For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame."

Matthew 26:28, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."

12

Protestant,

Your interpretation of Daniel's prophecy and Revelations is probably wrong. First, the Roman empire will serve the anti Christ not be the anti Christ. Second, the notion that the prophetic Roman empire is the Catholic church is merely a guess. Third, in a sense, the roman empire actually has survived to this day; so it is plausible that is what they were prophesying about. Fourth, before Israel was reestablished, theologians guessed all types of theories about what prophetic references to Israel meant. After all, Israel had ceased to exist. Now, we have a better sense of what God mean by Israel -- God meant the nation Israel; this makes perfect sense now that Israel exists once again. History vindicated prophecy in a way few expected. The theologians, including Catholic theologians, who concluded that their interpretation of scripture as a symbol were wrong. Humility is, after all, an important part of being a Christian. Fifth, simply because we may appreciate a movie made by a Catholic is not a logical reason to conclude that we will be joining the priesthood anytime soon. We should give credit where credit is due.

13

Kevin, with due respect, Jesus in the Gospels say far more than what you assume with your earlier comment. As to why He was going to be crucified and for what purpose.

I simply suggest you find a New Testament that has the words of Jesus in red, and simply read those red words from John's gospel. It will do far more for you than any quotes of chapter and verse I might provide.

I am not promoting reading the Bible out of context, (or diminishing the role of the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) but this simple exercise can be easily accomplished in one sitting (as opposed to say reading all four Gospels in entirety)

14

The movie does exactly what it was supposed to do-I thought the movie was excellent.

15

I love the paradox that Christians are promoting a film that in the UK will be an 18! I am a bit sad that I cannot really wade into these discussions as in the UK we still await our opportunity to view it. But view it I will, and once all my blogging friends are bored of it I will no doubt decide which side of the fence I am on!