My story is an old one. It is about a man who died nearly two thousand years ago, a death, despite all my cynicism that I believe was not the end of this man, but of his beginning.
In case you haven’t already guessed I am writing about the life of Christ. He is the savior of over of a billion people world wide, yet, at the same time, He is perhaps one of the most hated men of the past two thousand years. From the Pharisees to Soviet Communism, the forces of the state have tried to wipe Him out. Yet, His word remains as a counterbalance to the influence of all political systems, be it democracy or Totalitarianism.
This man’s name is, of course, Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians considered the son of God and the Christ.
Mel Gibson, a follower of traditional Catholicism, has recently completed work on a new film on the last hours of Christ. It promises to be one of the most controversial works of the year.
Gibson is no stranger to films about martyrs. He won an academy award for directing the film Braveheart, about the Scottish hero Sir William Wallace, who fought and died trying to free Scotland from the English crown.
Fortunately for “The Passion of the Christ,” Gibson spared us another execution of himself, instead hiring actor John Caviezel to play the role of Jesus.
Because I believe, following the example of Charley Reese (a former columnist for the Orlando Sentinel), that all columnists should list their conflicts of interest, I’ll list mine in this case. My family has followed the Christian faith since as long as they’ve been in America and my parents were both active youth ministers in the 1980s. I myself follow this faith, though, most certainly, not to the letter.
I grant that most reading this column are, or were reared in, the Christian faith, so I find it almost superfluous to write this, but, at the same time, for our non-Christian readers, I find it important to show where may true allegiances are.
From what I have seen of the film itself, and, I grant, this is only the trailers, it is already a masterpiece of the passion play. Told in Latin and Aramaic it is, from what I gather, an interpretation of the Biblical accounts of the last hours of Jesus Christ.
Even before the film’s release date, Ash Wednesday, it has garnered controversy.
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913 to “fight anti-Semitism through programs and services,” has attacked the film for its alleged “unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus.” Though the ADL concedes Mr. Gibson’s right to “Say that this is his personal religious vision,” they contest Mr. Gibson’s historical accuracy, citing Vatican II which absolved the Jews of their alleged historic guilt for the crucifixion of Christ.
Of course, the ADL doesn’t mean this anymore than fundamentalist Christians did when they went after Martin Scorsese for his Last Temptation of Christ. Frankly, I don’t believe anything besides Jesus Christ himself delivering a Sermon on the Mount about the ills of cutting Israeli aid and coming out for the death penalty for David Duke would make the organized anti-racists happy about this movie.
Still, what the ADL says, given their prominence, must be given thought. Will this movie prejudice Christians against their Jewish neighbors?
In my view, no. Fundamentalist Christians are almost more in love with Israel and the Jewish people than the Jews themselves (then again, the fundamentalists seem to love to Jews solely due to the so-called biblical promise of rapture), while most members of the mainline denominations are so politically correct that they can’t even get excited over gay marriage let alone a pogrom.
Personally, I’m looking forward to the film. I respect Gibson as both an actor and a director, and sincerely doubt that he would choose to inspire anything as murderous as a pogrom. Instead, I believe he will bring the same humility to his role in making this film as he did in the part that he cast himself in; the Roman soldier who hammers the nails into the hands and feet of Christ.
Still, we will see.