
On Good Friday, I watched "The Passion of the Christ" again. I hadn't seen it in four years, when I went to the theaters with a friend. I thought the film was good, though excessive in the violence, which is the primary reason why I never bought it on DVD, even the "edited version." I also didn't like the way Evangelicals flocked to this film, giddy about it's use as "the greatest missionary tool ever!" How they could view such a "snuff film" as the greatest missionary tool ever is completely baffling to me. Such depictions of violence wouldn't have much of an effect on Buddhists committed to non-violence. In fact, conservative Christians seemed proud of the fact that their Lord and Saviour was so brutally beaten, tortured, and crucified. Even director Mel Gibson bragged about how his hand made a cameo during the scene where a Roman soldier is putting a nail into Jesus' hand. Souvenirs of the movie included a replica nail hanging on a necklace for evangelicals to proudly display their "role" in helping to crucify Christ.

Before I get to my take on the movie (since I didn't have a blog when it first came out), I wanted to mention the uncanny dichotomy that occurred when this film was released. In fact, it almost seems divinely orchestrated to reveal how serious a disconnect Christianity has become from its origins. When "The Passion of the Christ" was raking in millions and millions of dollars (to over $300 million) in 2004, that same spring, news reports revealed the incriminating photographs of U.S. soldiers happily torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison where Saddam once did the same deeds.
Right-wing radio dismissed such acts as soldiers letting off steam, and didn't know what the fuss was all about, since those were "obviously terrorists" (though reports have it that many were just regular Iraqis routinely swept up in house searches with little evidence of terrorist associations). If there were any anger shown by the right, it was towards the soldier who turned in a disk full of photos to an investigating officer, with accusations of treason. Even I was shocked when I heard a church member dismiss such photos because "at least we didn't cut off their heads!" That was the best that could be said? And the person who said it also admitted to being teary-eyed at "The Passion of the Christ."
Man, such glaring contradiction really ticked me off like you wouldn't believe. I often get accused by pious Christians as being somewhat of a heretic (because I don't believe that Jesus's role was to be the Lord and Saviour we must accept to have eternal salvation and because I view his crucifiction as an example of his pacifism to not commit violence on others even to save his own life), but what baffles me about these Christians who claim to love and worship Christ is how they can't see the contradiction in front of them when the two were big news items in the spring of 2004. How can you condemn the Romans and Jewish Pharisees for torturing and crucifying their beloved saviour while at the same time dismiss the torture and humiliation and violence committed by our troops upon Iraqis (even if they are guilty of terrorism)? I simply don't get it. Why is one unacceptable while the other is easily dismissed? Didn't Jesus tell us, "That which you do to the least of your brethren, you do unto me"? Each time we torture someone, we are doing it to Jesus. And these pious Christians think it's okay because Jesus "died for our sins" so that gives us a license to sin since all will be forgiven in the end?
Talk about wacky theology! I'm amused that so many can believe that while rejecting my views as being heresy. But what good is it to believe that Jesus suffered torture, humiliation, violence, and the cross if we don't work to rid the world of violence and torture? Aren't we becoming the beast we accuse the Pharisees and Romans (and even modern-day terrorists) of being? Isn't it more meaningful to derive a different interpretation of Christ's crucifiction than the one we've been taught? Not that he suffered and died for the sake of our sins so we can have eternal life, but that he suffered and died because he was so committed to nonviolence that he wouldn't save his own life if it meant harming someone else. After all, he healed a Roman soldier's ear when they had come to arrest him and one of his disciples got a bit aggressive and cut it off. Isn't that an act of nonviolence we should learn...to heal, not to wound?
Now to the movie...
When it first came out, what pleased me the most were two points: That Mel Gibson wanted the actors to use the language of Christ (Aramaic) and the Romans (Latin) to give the film an authenticity we've never seen before. That was brilliant and I was excited for that point alone, to hear the language Jesus spoke (or the closest approximation we could get). The second thing I liked was that Jim Caviezel was chosen to play Jesus. When I had seen the film "Pay it Forward" in 2000 or 2001, I remember thinking when I saw Jim Caviezel (as a homeless addict) that he would make a great Jesus in a movie. Wow, talk about perfect casting!
Overall, I liked the movie, especially the all too brief flashback scenes (particularly the one where Jesus is making a table and laughing). I wanted more of those. In fact, when I left theaters, I felt that it should be made into a trilogy, in which the first part would be "The Life of the Christ" and the third part would be "The Resurrection of the Christ." Using the same actors, sets, and languages, it would make a great trilogy. To leave it as is, though, it's still hard for me to watch. The violence is just excessive and unnecessary. Gibson's whole point, however, was to induce guilt in followers who watch this film..."look at how much Jesus suffered for your sins!" That's not a good motivation for any kind of spirituality. Jesus was so much more than that. We need to see him inspiring people, healing people, leading people, laughing, playing with children, talking with women, joking with his disciples whenever they "don't get it." I want more of that in a film about Jesus.
The main controversy was about the way Jews were portrayed, but after watching it again, I still fail to see any anti-Semitism in the film. I think it's absurd sensitivity. It was historically accurate that the Pharisees (led by Caiphas) were the ones who wanted Jesus crucified for fear that he'd undermine their religious authority of the people. He was a real threat to their power. What's so anti-Semitic about that? In the modern day, if Jesus were to walk and preach in America, it would be Pat Robertson and James Dobson who would demand Jesus crucifiction today and probably a Jewish lawyer would defend Jesus from the persecuting Christians. Jesus is a threat to anyone who misuses power to control the mass of people. Jesus would be a threat to our "so-called Christian president" George W. Bush. It's a timeless struggle between oppression and liberation, between authentic spirituality and a controlling religious authority.
What I didn't like about the film (besides the violence) was the appearance of Satan. Especially making him to look like some androgynous freak-show like Marilyn Manson. It distracted from a film that strived to be as historically authentic as possible. And it served no purpose, other than to connect Christ's passion to the Adam and Eve story (I assume that's the sole purpose of the snake that Jesus stomps on in the beginning of the film).
It's been four years since this film and where are we on the morality scale? Our nation seems to be worse off. We, as a nation, have had many opportunities to show our commitment to Christ (since so many love to claim that we are "the most Christian nation on earth") but we failed in New Orleans when Katrina hit, we continue to fail in our Middle East policies, our economic policies, our domestic policies. For those Christians who believe the whole salvation story of Christ's crucifiction, if they still support Bush because they believe him to be the most Christian president we've ever had, I kind of feel sorry for them. They don't truly know Christ like they claim to. Christianity is more than profession of a belief you've been taught to believe by some religious authority. It's about bringing the life, mission, and message of Christ into our everyday world and nation's policies. To this day, I fail to see the values of Christ embodied in our government's actions around the world and to its own citizens. I don't expect our government to be an advocate of any religion, but it is quite disturbing that some Christians truly believe our government is representative of their Christ. That, to me, is scarier than any terrorist attack.
Happy Easter!