Passion for Religious Liberty

PASSION FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

(Originally written 2004)

After "The Passion of The Christ" finally came out on DVD, I was obliged to watch it, as I had missed it in the theaters. The imposing soundtrack was great on my surround-sound system, but the Big Screen would have admittedly been better. I had made some snide comments in an e-mail about Mel Gibson's hustling of crucifixion "trinkets" with flyers in the DVD's, and a friend who was not pleased with my attitude challenged me to watch the movie, then discuss it with him. This review is the result of that viewing.

Mel Gibson supposedly re-released the movie in a watered-down version, ostensibly less violent, for the following Easter season. The opinions of those who saw it in 2003 are more interesting than the movie itself.

The movie is pretty good historical fiction. It moves well, the characters are well-developed even if a bit simplistic, the plot is well-paced, and the organizational structure is well-established. Although it embellishes the accounts in the Gospels rather substantially, the "filler" is credible and seems accurate as far as the brutality of what likely would happen. Some have criticized Gibson for making an excessively violent film, but I think it is correctly violent for its treatment of a violent subject. Crucifixion obviously occurred, and it was obviously very brutal. The movie is true to its subject matter. I am personally sorry that Gibson seems to feel a need to “sanitize” it.

The plot and detail track the King James Version Gospel accounts fairly accurately. I re-read those accounts several times prior to seeing the movie, and they are rather skimpy on detail. They seem written many years thereafter, as frequently alleged.

Despite the movie’s strengths, I remain bemused by Gibson's hustling of Crucifixion trinkets; there was a promotional flyer in the DVD case. He has a right to do anything he wants to make money with his film, and he has made a lot. Probably 65% of adult Virginians have seen the film at least once. BUT--it is the published reactions to the film that give me pause, and the subjectivity of the film's impact is troubling.

Most Christians who have seen the movie seem to profess a persecution complex, considering the viewer comments quoted in the various media. The Gospel accounts and this movie (and the other Crucifixion movies over the years) understandably generate righteous indignation about the treatment visited upon Jesus by the Romans, by the Pharisees, and by the crowd of Jews (mostly). Many Christians see themselves as superior to those who schemed to put Jesus on the cross. The movie also subtly portrays the crucifiers as plug-ugly while Jesus's friends are all fairly good-looking. I am parroting an observation I read much earlier, but I did get the same impression.

Christians, in reality, are more empowered now (in secular fashion) than since the Middle Ages, when the Roman Church WAS the government in most of Europe. There is afoot a subtle imposition of a generic Judeo-Christianity as the official religion for our “Christian nation.” George Bush got re-elected in part by pandering to this cause. His faith-based initiatives to fund overt religious programs at taxpayer expense are happening, like it or not. Dems have been vigorous with professions of their own religious beliefs in feeble defense against the dreaded “L-word.”

I remember when John Kennedy was pressed to prove he would NOT allow his personal religious beliefs to influence his presidential acts. We have come a long way, indeed. There is now a well-established class of political Pharisees. Most Republicans are now compliant, whereas they once defended separation of church and state. Neither major party is willing to go out on that limb, especially since Bill Clinton blurred those lines among Democrats.

Which brings me to what I learned from Gibson’s movie: the Crucifixion is not about Jews vs. Christians, Romans vs. Christians, or Christian Jews vs. Pharisees. It is about power and its misuse. Gibson's movie tells the time-honored tale of what human beings will do with unchecked power over other humans. Ironically (and I think this is totally unintended by Gibson), it makes a very strong case for the Bill of Rights, separation of church and state, a strong, independent judiciary, fearless lawyers, and a citizenry trained to be instinctively skeptical of what comes out of the mouths of political leaders. Today’s political Christians are definitely not submissively hanging on the cross. They are in the clamoring crowd yelling for revenge.

Gibson’s movie shows what ordinary folks will do when they gang up on those who cannot defend themselves. Defining blasphemy in others can be gratifying. Then one gets to punish the “others” because they do not comply with the rules and, by the way, the deity is just too busy to take care of bidness him/herself and would appreciate the help. So it goes.

That is what I got from Gibson’s “Passion.” Perhaps the passions of Easter Week will cause some to give thanks for the wonderful separationist principles of the First Amendment, which have protected individual believers especially well.