Placing blame

Mel Gibson's new movie, "The Passion" is getting a lot of that pre-release publicity - also known as controversy - that's been known to take movies that might have appealed to a limited audience and make them the subject of curiosity to many more paying ticket-goers.

The focus of controversy with this film - which is Gibson's attempt to portray the final hours before the crucifixion of Christ - is that some percieve it as being anti-Semetic.

Some Jewish groups, like the Anti-Defamation League, are charging Gibson with promoting anti-Semitism. According to a variety of reports, Abraham Foxman, ADL national director has said, "The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus."

Foxman also added, "We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate."

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has also commented on the film.

Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Wiesenthal Center's office in Los Angeles said in a statement issued overnight that the centre had received hate mail accusing it "of being Christ killers" after the group publicly expressed reservations about the film.

"For 20 centuries, the false charges ... have been the core reasons for anti-Semitism, causing the death and persecution of millions of Jews," Hier said.

I've not seen the movie, so I can't comment on whether the concerns are valid or not, nor am I familar enough with Gibson's beliefs to know if he would be likely to include an message that could be taken as anti-Semetic or not, so this isn't about the movie itself, per se, or about Gibson's views. It's about the issue that seems to be at the heart of the controversy - the belief by some Christians that the Jews were responsible for Christ's death, and the fact that much of the hatred of Jews throughout history has stemmed from the anger of Christians who consider them - as a race - to be the murderer's of Christ.

Here's the problem I have with that line of reasoning: If, as Christians believe, Jesus is the Messiah who was promised in the Old Testament, and if salvation was made possible by his ability to overcome death when he was resurrected following his crucifixion, doesn't it stand to reason that - regardless of who ordered the crucifixion, his death was not only necessary to save humankind, but was also an integral part of God's plan.

See, the way I look at it (and the way I looked at it when I was still a Christian), it shouldn't matter one whit who - on earth - brought about the circumstances of Jesus' crucifixion because his crucifixion was required for God's plan to be fulfilled. If you think about it, in fact, the whole purpose of Christ even coming to earth in the first place was so that he could die and be resurrected again, thus providing a means for God's salvation to his followers. If (and I'm not saying I think this is necessarily the case, but if the allegation is true) the Jews (as a race) were the earthly agents of Christ's crucifixion, I would think that the Christians should be grateful to them for doing Gods will rather than hating them for it. I mean, if Christ hadn't died, they wouldn't be saved, would they?

It brings to mind one of the questions I had when I served as a missionary disc jockey at my church's radio station in Nome, KA, that led the church's minister to ask the station manager to have me on the air during church services so I couldn't "cause problems". I just could not understood why Judas was condemned to hell for his betrayal of Christ, since that betrayal was a necessary part of God's plan. In order for Jesus' crucifixion to occur, he had to be betrayed to the authorities, so logically, someone had to betray him. In betraying Christ, Judas was doing exactly what God needed him to.

Maybe there's something fundamental I'm not grasping here, but it just doesn't make any sense.

Posted by thorswitch at August 15, 2003 11:43 PM | TrackBack