- The controversy over Mel Gibsonís film "The
Passion of the Christ" involves significant religious conflicts and
the dispute over whether the film is anti-Semitic may not be the most important
of those.
-
- The claim of anti-Semitism has been repeated by gentiles
who regard any strong manifestation of religion as dangerous. Little noticed
by many religious believers, there are now influential people in our society
(journalists, for example) who simply think that traditional religion should
be discouraged. Gibsonís film is by far the most effective popular
expression of Christianity in many years and it is largely for that reason
that it is attacked.
-
- For some of its critics there is an unrecognized pun
here ó linking the word "passion" with religion immediately
sets off their alarm bells. One negative critic assures his readers that
"Jesus was a pretty cool dude" and goes on to say that "most
scholars" think he was a political revolutionary, a claim which would
surprise most of the scholars I know.
-
- In typical fashion, these secularists cannot decide which
of two contradictory charges should be used to discredit Gibson ó
that he is a dangerous fanatic or that he is cynically out to make money.
He has been accused of orchestrating a campaign of publicity for the film,
as though he is the one who started the controversy. If Gibson is dismissed
as cynical, then he ceases to be dangerous and those who admire his film
are gullible yokels. Hollywood, as we all know, only makes films for serious
moral reasons.
-
- The accusation that Gibson is actually sadistic in his
portrayal of the passion is itself a prime example of cynical hypocrisy,
coming as it does from people who celebrate every shocking new violation
of peoples sensibilities as an "artistic breakthrough." (The
effort to force Gibson to modify his film, if not to withdraw it completely,
is the most blatant attempt at "prior censorship" of the media
in years.)
-
- When all is said and done, some of the critics are less
bothered by the film itself than by the Gospel accounts on which it is
based, Gibson is not accused of seriously distorting those accounts but
of taking them too seriously. This leads directly into the other controversy
which lies barely beneath the surface ó the continuing tension between
orthodox and liberal Christians.
-
- Thus the president of a Catholic college is quite explicit
about his own agenda ó the Gospels themselves contain "regrettable"
passages which should be expunged, and " ... many interpreters of
the Gospel mistook the story for history." (Yes, indeed, we plead
guilty.) A minister discounts the importance of Jesusí crucifixion
and urges people to concentrate instead on those who have suffered for
political causes. ("Jesus did not die for the sins of humankind.")
-
- A woman who is "studying to be a spiritual advisor"
regrets that the film concentrates on "the aspect of Christís
life most questioned by modern theologians and religious scholars."
(Even the most skeptical scholars think that Jesusí crucifixion,
alluded to in ancient texts other than the Bible, did occur.) Another woman,
who is a candidate for ordination, thinks there can be no satisfactory
film about Jesus because it is not clear who he even was.
-
- The film could have been less violent. But those who
condemn it for that reason miss the point. Christianity teaches that Jesus
died for the sins of the human race and that sin is a terrible thing, the
ultimate horror. Jesus need not have suffered so brutally in order to redeem
us, but He chose to do so, and the Evangelists thought it necessary to
record that suffering. Our culture is prone to seeing sin as merely a question
of "mistakes," which makes the passion incomprehensible.
-
- The minister quoted above no doubt thinks of himself
as a very tolerant person, but he demands that everyone share his theology
and those who do not are bigots. For such people the stakes are indeed
high. If the Gospel accounts are not credible, if Jesus did not die for
our sins, then historic Christianity is simply a terrible error and people
today are free to reshape it in any way they see fit. "The Passion"
is, finally, a reminder of the impossibility of that task.
-
- - Dr. Hitchcock is a professor of history at St. Louis
University.
-
- Copyright ©2004 Arlington Catholic Herald. All
rights reserved.
-
- http://www.catholicherald.com/hitch/04jh/jh040311.htm
|
