THE POLARIZING PASSION OF THE CHRIST: REVIEW: HANDICAP-FRIENDLY VERSION

The polarizing passion of Christ: review

"Moviegoers will be forced to make a decision about Christ after they leave the theater," Mel Gibson

Apparently there are two films now showing called "The Passion of the Christ."

Some critics have charged the controversial Mel Gibson film is "a sickening death trip" (David Denby, The New Yorker), "the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade" (David Ansen, Newsweek) and "The Goriest Story Ever Told" (Richard Corliss, Time Magazine).

Many Christian leaders, however, have just the opposite opinion: "an awe-inspiring portrayal" (Robert Schuller), "brilliant, biblical—a masterpiece" (Rick Warren), "no one who views this film's compelling imagery will ever be the same" (Billy Graham), and "it leads the viewer into prayer and reflection, into heartfelt contemplation" (Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos).

I tend to be just a bit schizophrenic toward the film.

Yes, it is a bloody, brutal film. And some of the violence is gratuitous and extra-biblical. The bloody flogging and flaying of Christ goes way beyond the Roman's legal limit of 39 lashes. (I stopped counting at 99!) And none of the Gospels record a crow pecking out the eye of one of the thieves crucified with Christ. I tend to agree with our daughter Faith's bedtime prayer when she was three. That Good Friday evening she prayed, "Thank you, Jesus, for dying on the cross, and thank you we didn't have to watch."

However, Gibson has captured, like no previous film on the passion, the horror of flogging and crucifixion. The tremendous loss of blood from flogging was often fatal. And the pain of crucifixion required the creation of a new word to describe it: excruciating.

Yes, it puts the Jewish leaders in a bad light. (I can empathize just a bit since I was offended at how Gibson portrayed my English ancestors in his bloody Revolutionary War film "The Patriot.")

However, it should be pointed out that the hero of the film is called a rabbi and the "good guys" are all Jewish! The Gentiles are the ones who did the actual dirty work. The film is no more anti-Jewish than the Holocaust Museum and the film "Schindler's List" are anti-German.

Yes, this is an unbalanced portrait of Christ's message and mission, but even the disciple John admitted that providing all the details is impossible: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. . . ." (The 1979 film "Jesus" comes as close to any in presenting a balanced account of Christ, but at points lacks the passion of Gibson's film.)

But what is it about this film that creates such polarizing passions on both sides of the aisle?

Hundreds of films about Christ have been made from the silent "The Passion Play at Oberammergau" (1898) to "The Gospel of John" just last year. This is the first, though, to focus primarily on the crucifixion using the fourteen "Stations of the Cross" as its basis. St. Paul writes "Christ crucified [is] a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."

To the Jews the film is an anti-Semitic "stumbling block." For two thousand years the Jewish people have rejected Jesus as the promised "Messiah" or liberator. And for almost as many years, the Jews have been maligned and/or mistreated by so-called Christians.

To non-Jews, who don't believe, it does seem "foolish." Andy Rooney ("Sixty Minutes") called Mel Gibson and Pat Robertson, who endorses the film, "wackos" who are "crazy as bedbugs." And during Diane Sawyer's "20/20" interview with Gibson, she seemed unable to comprehend what he was saying as he attempted to explain his faith and motivation for making the film.

For those who believe that Christ died for their sins to restore their relationship with God, the film is more glorious than gory. It is still painfully difficult to watch and seems to go on for eternity, but the film does provide powerful, unforgettable images of the incredible love God has for humankind.

One of the trailers for the film shows Jesus using his finger to draw a line in the sand. Gibson attempts to do the same saying, "Moviegoers will be forced to make a decision about Christ after they leave the theater." One must either accept the premise that Christ died a brutal, bloody death to save humankind or dismiss it as "foolishness." The Christ is either a Savior or "stumbling block."

And that, perhaps, is the reason that one film is producing such passion and polarity.