|
|
THE MOVIE "The Passion of the Christ" has certainly stirred America's passion.
Hardly a newscast has occurred in the last two weeks that had not produced a segment on Mel Gibson's controversial film.
In fact, the controversy began months ago when Jewish leaders, according to the media, voiced their disapproval of the project on grounds that it was anti-Semitic.
If you would believe television news--and sometimes I don't--the Jewish community is outraged because the film portrays the Jewish people in a bad light. The movie suggests that it was the crowd outside and not Pilate who really condemned Christ to the cross.
Of those interviewed after seeing "The Passion of the Christ," not one has called the movie anti-Semitic. What most have complained about is the graphic violence.
As I have said before, we are a society that does not like to deal with unpleasantries, and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was an unpleasantry. Instead of anguish, we would much rather view the biblical incident through the eyes of an Old Master's painting, with only a trickle of blood on Jesus' brow and a splotch of red on his side.
We want to see a polite crucifixion, one that fits our lifestyle. We don't want to see actual pain and suffering, only symbols of those unpleasantries.
Some biblical experts say "The Passion of the Christ" closely follows New Testament accounts of Jesus' execution. So why all the controversy?
Perhaps it is because we live in a revisionist era where we tend to rewrite history so that there are no bad guys. We don't want to lower anyone's self-esteem, you know.
The Japanese, for example, have become World War II victims (at least in the eyes of some) despite the fact that they bombed Pearl Harbor and committed untold atrocities in China. America dropped the atomic bomb, so we are the bad guys.
Do we now absolve the Jews of any complicity in Christ's crucifixion? Do we disregard biblical accounts and create our own story?
Why not? We twist the Bible to suit our other needs. Why not rewrite the crucifixion in the modern American image?
We don't want to incite the Jews by suggesting their ancestors had anything to do with Jesus' death, and we don't want to condemn our Italian allies by blaming the Romans for the crucifixion.
Who then killed Jesus? Who is responsible for nailing the Savior to the cross?
Well, if you asked President Bush he would probably say Saddam Hussein was behind the whole mess.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge would likely blame Osama bin Laden, while the Justice Department might declare that Martha Stewart had something to do with it.
If Sen. Joseph McCarthy were alive he would surely blame Christ's death on the communists, and former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover would have Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon and Jack Kennedy watched to see if they had any involvement.
And the CIA? Well, the CIA would insist that there was absolutely no evidence that Jesus was actually killed. A more likely scenario, Langley would contend, was that Christ really committed suicide for our sins. And the CIA would disavow any knowledge of either Christ or the incident.
You know, the CIA version probably fits our society better than any other. If Jesus committed suicide then there would be no one to blame and everybody's self-esteem would soar.
Personally, I think that all the talk about Mel Gibson's movie is much ado about nothing. "The Passion of the Christ" is merely another interpretation of a great religious moment. It is not the first and it will not be the last.
The story of the crucifixion is about something greater than Jews or Romans or American history revisionists. It is about salvation and the immortality of the human soul.
You know, as I read the Bible, Christ didn't blame either the Jews or the Romans for his death. He contended that it was the sins of mankind that nailed him to the cross.
If that's the case, I guess we can all share in the blame.
Maybe that's why we don't like to see the violence and suffering.
To reach DONNIE JOHNSTON: DJohn40330@aol.com