The Passion of the Christ film

No film in recent memory has been as controversial or sparked conversation quite like "The Passion of the Christ," directed by Mel Gibson. Many who have seen the film have responded strongly to its depiction of the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus. Some find it profoundly moving while others are put off by its focus on pain and suffering.

In the spirit of continuing dialogue, you are invited to contribute your thoughts, feelings and responses to the film to be presented on our website for others to see and share. If you have seen the film, please write up your thoughts as you would like to share them and e-mail to us. If you prefer, you may deliver a printed copy to the Church Office (Attention: Website Committee). Please be sure to indicate if we may use your name (but not your e-mail address or any other contact information) along with your contribution. Hopefully, this will become a real-world way to share our diversity with those who visit our website!

§ § §

At best, the film was an opportunity for discussion and so far in my discussions is its violence, lack of biblical and historical accuracy and that it is completely devoid of Jesus' profound teachings about justice, goodness and how we treat each other. To not see the anti-Semitism is to be blind, as I saw the Roman leadership as wanting punishment but wanting to avoid killing Jesus and the Jews as far more responsible for his death. Sustaining this view is harmful and irresponsible. For me, I came away with a passion--please stop showing death, violence, hate and torture as the main event and message of the life and teachings of a prince of Peace who stood with the poor and oppressed and taught followers how to treat each other and how to have a relationship with God. -- Ann Appley

I was moved and challenged Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" film. When I am reminded of the humanity of Jesus, the fact that he was not a superhero but a man with emotions and flesh, I am reminded of the close and intimate connection that God desires with each of us, and the film did that for me. Throughout biblical history, God breaks into the everyday of humanity and participates in a myriad of ways. Jesus' life and death on the cross bring me back to that intimate point of contact with our God.

The greatest challenge I faced regarding the film was the media and propaganda that revolved around it. There were some amazing opportunities for gracious and healing conversations to be had between Christians and Jews regarding the historical use of passion plays to justify anti-Semitic acts, yet what made the news were protests and dismissals, not compassionate dialogues. Our understanding of the historical accuracy and meaning of scripture could have been unraveled a bit more, instead Gibson proclaimed the movie as a translation of the texts and yet he then described how he fashioned several shots to replicate medieval paintings.

The movie brought topics of discussion to dinner tables and coffee shops around the world that do not normally garner the attention of the masses...for that I loved this film. I trust that the Holy Spirit works among us all, even in our confusion and consternation at times, and that as we all continue to explore and question we will continue to learn and grow.

-- Brigit Monson

I saw "The Passion of the Christ" not because I wanted to but because I felt I needed to. The film was bound to be controversial, and I wanted to be able to discuss it from a standpoint of having seen it, and not fall into the trap of those who condemned and vilified Martin Scorcese's film "The Last Temptation of Christ" but had never seen it.

Director Mel Gibson has discussed his reasons for the structure of his film, which begins with Jesus in the garden at Gethsemane and continues through the crucifixion. His belief was that most people, western audiences in particular, are already familiar enough with the story of the Gospels that he could jump right in at the betrayal and arrest of Jesus, moving on to the trial and execution, and viewers would immediately be able to follow along. After all, they already know how the story begins. In this way, Gibson would be able truly to tell and focus on the fairly simple story of Jesus and his passion without having to tell the entire story of his life. He intended to depict the various tortures inflicted upon Jesus, as well as the crucifixion, very graphically, illustrating clearly the great suffering of the Savior. In a move that might have spelled box-office poison, he also decided that there would be little character dialogue, and it would be entirely in Aramaic and Latin. (To Hollywood's great surprise, "The Passion of the Christ" has become a box-office phenomenon and a financial jackpot--nearly $600 million in worldwide revenues and counting.) Although Gibson has made a film of peculiar and undeniable power, it is handicapped, both artistically and theologically, by these very fundamental decisions that have dictated its structure.

Artistically, the film is compromised by the failure to place Jesus, its central character, in any kind of social or human context. We first meet him in the moments preceding his arrest and removal to trial, imprisonment, torture and execution. Although the scenes depicting Jesus' trial and torture are mercifully intercut with flashbacks from his childhood and ministry--and, make no mistake, these sequences are some of the most powerful and artistically successful scenes in the film--they are not enough to give the character full humanity. Perhaps this was Gibson's intent: to present Jesus not as a man but as the Savior. In the end, Jesus is shown not as a person to be known and pitied but as an object to be destroyed.

Theologically, the message of the film (assuming its intent is to convey some elements of Christian teaching) is damaged by its unrelenting focus on violent torture and death. Gibson focuses on the concept of "He suffered and died for all our sins" to the nearly complete exclusion of Jesus' own teachings: Love God with all your heart; love others as you love yourself, and as you wish to be loved. The central message of Christianity is grossly distorted by the failure to show Jesus engaging in ministry to and relationship with others. Instead, we only see him brutally tortured, nearly flayed alive in an orgy of sadism, and then eviscerated as he hangs, already dying, on the cross. In the end, the message of the Gospels--that redemption is not only possible but also freely available as the gift of God to humankind--is lost in a flood of blood and gore.

Oh, and what about the resurrection? That is essentially how the film treats it--as an afterthought. Sitting in the theater, after the scenes of Jesus' death on the cross, the destruction of the temple, and the final fadeout, I was left wondering if Gibson's vision of Jesus excluded not only his life and teachings but also the idea of the resurrection. Thankfully, the audience is offered a token of reprieve: a fleeting glimpse of light spilling through the entrance of a stone tomb, illuminating empty burial shrouds and a living, naked Jesus striding out, a nail hole clearly visible, piercing through the palm of his hand, then nothing. What does it mean? Again, there is no context. We do not see Jesus returning to his friends, speaking their names, showing his love. Perhaps Gibson expects us to know the story so well that we can fill in the blanks without assistance. Maybe he intends for us to find the meaning in our own hearts. In the end, the greatest story ever re-told leaves us blasted, empty, unenlightened, and unfulfilled. -- Wesly Moore