2 of 6

Barbara Nicolosi (Church of the Masses) goes so far as to suggest a connection between those who find The Passion's violence too graphic and those apostles of Christ who fled his crucifixion. She attributes this to "a failure of courage, and the consequence of a weak faith."

Similarly, Brian Godawa (RazorMouth), author of Hollywood Worldviews, writes, "The brutal realism of Christ's suffering points to the depth and costliness of atonement, which was achieved for God's people through His once-for-all sacrifice. To show anything less is to diminish the gospel. Watching this movie, with its in-your-face grisly realism, provides a much-needed corrective to our modern pseudo-gospels with their bloodless Jesuses."

But is this what "really happened?" Is this "grisly realism"?

Christian film critic Peter T. Chattaway (Canadian Christianity) is says that the "realistic" details of the film are, in several cases, significantly inaccurate.

"Everything you know about The Passion of the Christ is wrong," he writes. "For over a year, the film's most vocal critics have said Mel Gibson's movie about the death of Jesus is anti-Semitic, while its most vocal supporters have said no, it's only an accurate representation of Scripture and history. In truth, the film is neither."

He reprimands the religious leaders rushing to call it accurate: "It is quite telling that the only way many Christians know how to defend a work of art is to assert that it is an 'accurate' adaptation of Scripture, as if to minimize its artistry or creativity. It is even more telling that many Christians make this assertion even when the work of art in question contains several elements that are quite definitely not accurate."

Chattaway goes on to explain that the film's portrayal of the crucifixion "rejects modern historical scholarship" and that it "erroneously identifies Mary Magdalene with the woman caught in adultery." He goes on to remind us that in the Gospel of Luke, it is an angel who visits Christ in Gethsemane, not Satan, as portrayed in the film.

"There isn't necessarily anything wrong with these sorts of artistic decisions," he says, "but they are not exactly 'accurate.'"

Dick Staub (CultureWatch) also shares cautionary words: "Christians who seem to have an uncanny knack for getting everything wrong about popular culture have done it again! They are investing extraordinary energy in Mel Gibson's movie, with one person calling it 'one of the greatest opportunities for evangelism in 2,000 years!'"

He elaborates: "A representative from Gibson's company explained their promotion of the Passion to religious leaders as more in the interest of marketing than evangelism, a distinction evangelicals evidently no longer recognize."

Also skeptical, Terry Mattingly voices something slightly dissonant with the predominant, unbridled enthusiasm of the religious press. In his new religion blog GetReligion, Mattingly says, "I have been fascinated by the lack of critical voices among conservative Protestants. At some point, the overwhelming Catholic symbolism is going to tick off a really conservative Reformed Protestant and the fur will fly somewhere online." He even has a premonition: "I would keep an eye on the letters pages of World magazine and its blog."

A negative portrayal of Jews in Passion ? What about recent portrayals of the Catholic Church?

next page... |  2 of 6

share this page

February (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48