Passionate POVs

[neadods]

Although I don't want to see the movie (I'm not big on the gore and guts for any reason, and as an atheist I'm not really willing to pay to be proselytized) I have been following the reviews and commentary on The Passion of the Christ with interest.

And after a while, particularly in seeing the various responses from the public in breathless/horrified anticipation, I finally realized something.

There are, to oversimplify, two kinds of Christians.

One kind, the kind I grew up with/as, focuses almost entirely on Christ's life. Yes, he died horribly, but that's glossed over with the simple chant of the creed weekly - "He was crucified, died, and was buried." But that's not the important part; that's what comes next in the creed. "On the third day he rose again, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father..." What is stressed is how he lived, what he taught, and that he lives still, and you can too if you live according to What Would Jesus Do?

The other kind, and these are the ones that Passion is aimed completely at, focuses more on the death than the life. The point here is less on what would Jesus do than what he did - offer himself up as an Old-Testament-style blood sacrifice, the literal scapegoat for humanity. The prayer on the back of Chick tracts says "I believe you died for my sins" and never mentions "I will live according to your teachings." The hymn sings "washed clean in the blood of the Lamb." Was it Mel or was it one of the ministers singing the praises of his film that said "Jesus didn't give one drop of blood for us, he gave every drop of blood for us!"

Looked at that way, of course the movie is going to be as graphically sanguinary as possible. The suffering is the whole point.


Mind you, this still leaves me wondering about another either/or that came up recently:

Last summer, a religiously-based group of people drove a major kink convention out of Ocean City. Although the activities would have been completely shrouded in a hotel, the objections were "what about the children, what if they're exposed to it?" and "people shouldn't be allowed to hurt other people, even if they think they want it!"

This spring, several religious groups are founding a major drive to take children to see what is, in essence, a torture snuff film.

Can anyone explain that to me?

Comments

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

I can't explain the last question, but I disagree with your first assertion. I deal with Christians every single day in a Christian context and not only are you oversimplifying it, I would say that your basic two breakdowns are not even correct.

If I were to define two type of Christians, I would divide them into "those with faith" and "true believers." Those with faith believe in their hearts that the gospel is a blessed book and that they have received countless signs of God's generosity every single day. They recognize that others have other faiths and allow them that latitude. The belief of others in other faith systems is no threat to them -- in fact, they may well recognize the sacred nature of other beliefs.

True believers believe their is the one true faith. They know what they know because this is what was taught to them and this is what they cling to. For a variety of reasons, they have a desperate need for this belief to be their foundation, and are threatened by those who hold other beliefs. They are threatened even when Christians question them on the foundations of their faith and how it works within their life. Unlike those with faith, they have never questioned their faith, explored their spiritual journey or looked beyond their own beliefs. That, to them, is something that shakes their very core.

In my seven years here, I've never met a Christian who focuses on the blood rather than the rising. In fact, few Christians probably even understand the brutal nature of cruxifiction (I'm not spelling that right). (And you don't even discuss the fact that the people who are most upset about this movie are Jews -- who feel it is anti-Semetic.)

I will say, on your last question, that many of the groups who are talking about taking children haven't seen it, or probably weren't involved in the incident you talk about. Most of the people I have talked to who are upset about this film are true believers. They're the ones who aren't open to other lifestyles and who aren't taking their children anywhere near this film.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

In my seven years here, I've never met a Christian who focuses on the blood rather than the rising. In fact, few Christians probably even understand the brutal nature of cruxifiction (I'm not spelling that right). (And you don't even discuss the fact that the people who are most upset about this movie are Jews -- who feel it is anti-Semetic.)

Hmm. Interesting. But I actually agree with Nea, and my perspective from a completely different angle. There are Christians out there, who may very well be the True Believers you have in mind, who do seem to focus on the death of Jesus and the folks what done him in. Unless you have had a childhood acquaintence, your same age of 12, regale you with "You dirty Jew, my mommy says you killed Jesus and you should die!" then you may not have met one of these death-obsessed Christians Nea describes. I have. I've had my next door neighbor tell me that he could hardly wait to see me go to hell for what the Jews did to his Lord. Let's see...I was about 16 then, and he was an adult. So, yeah, pardon my oversensitivity, and I'm not even a practicing Jew. Seems to me all those Blood-obsessed purveyors of Christian charity are doing is looking for validation from Mel the Apostle. Whose movie I wouldn't give a rat's ass about, really, if his cameras didn't cross fade between hooked noses. Give me a Christian like Cardinal Egan, who may differ with me about abortion rights and same-sex marriage, but who nevertheless preaches from the pulpit about love for your fellow man, and about the evils of anti-semitism. He's a Christian embracing the way Jesus lived.

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

I can see that, and have known a few people who do ascribe to the "Jews are bad because they kill Christ" nonsense, but all of them have been true believers who have never stopped to examine the basis of their faith and what faith means -- no matter who practices it or what faith they practice. Those same people will find reasons to damn Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion, too -- their excuse to damning the Jewish faith just comes more readily to hand.

And, perhaps, we're talking about much the same thing. Perhaps those who fgwriter sees focusing on the way Christ lived are those who are comfortable with their faith and open to outside ideas -- and therefore living as Christ did. Those who focus on how Christ died could well be those who are closed against other religions and apparently angry. I just don't know how she's making that judgment since I've known her for over a decade and she's never once asked me my beliefs about the focus of my faith. I really thing the observable nature is due more to the comfort level of their own faith and therefore their willingness to accept the beliefs of others.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

What you say is right and sadly, all too true, particularly about true believers never questioning and indeed fighting off questions. But it's not quite what I'm talking about, although on reflection, they may be related (bear with me, I'll get to that.)

In my oversimplification I wasn't drawing distinctions between Catholic and Protestant, but they become crucial here. Catholicism doesn't focus more on the death than the life, but it does go into rather graphic detail on the death; I saw horrifically bloody, suffering crucified Christs in many cathedrals in Europe, particularly the Medieval ones when life was sanginary in general. And IIRC, some of the stations of the cross commemorate some of Jesus' torments, including falling while dragging the thing. So there is more of an emphasis on the death.

But for the rest of it, what made me say what I did - well, maybe this is something that has to be seen from the outside in. I'm assuming that Howard doesn't have a lot of people wandering by trying to save your heathen souls. It's different when you're a pagan or an atheist, both of which I've been in a long and wierd journey. There isn't a lot of evangelizing from the live-and-let live folks, the Christians of faith as you put it. What there is, boils down along the lines of "I shall let my life serve as an example and hope you emulate it."

But the really in-your-face evangelists, the ones who nag and insult and bully are a different matter. For one thing, you're right, they're "true believers" many of them; the very existance of alternative groups is an affront that must be dealt with. But the manner of the dealing, almost inevitably, focuses on pain and suffering, either Jesus' or yours. Not that Jesus is Good or Jesus is Love or that life will be better if you follow him. But Jesus is GOD and Jesus loved you enough to DIE for you and if you don't follow him you will BURN in HELLFIRE ETERNAL! It's amazing how many people assume that if they just pop in and tell the story of the crucifixion, nonChristians will drop to their knees with a gasp and a cry of "Why didn't anyone tell me? I believe! I believe!" (Jack Chick is notnotnot any more a true representative of Christianity than Fred Phelps is, but oy, a sad number of people think that evangelism works like his little tracts - which show up like a bad rash anywhere a blatently nonChristian group gathers. Christianity, according to Jack, means believing that Christ died for your sins. You can be a complete scumsucking villain as long as you believe, and Satan's most pernicious lie is that good people go to heaven.)

Maybe it's not an internal focus of the groups that I've mentioned, but simply the manner of evangelism - one focusing on the benefits of a Christian life and the other focusing on the... something... of Christ's death. Certainly there's been a component of the marketing of The Passion that outright says "everyone should see this movie," "this movie is a powerful marketing tool," "this movie will make you believe."

But.. believe in what? That human beings can torture one of their own to death? That much is an established fact. But watching it play out for two hours may make me lose lunch, but it won't make me find faith. I can't imagine anyone who would be convinced who didn't walk into the theater with a predisposition.

And you don't even discuss the fact that the people who are most upset about this movie are Jews -- who feel it is anti-Semetic

Because there isn't much to discuss there; that ground has been pretty much covered. However, the anti-Semetism was just the opening shot of what has become a wider set of controversies, and it's those issues that interest me. Is it an evangelism tool? If so, is it effective? Is it too graphic for children? Adults?

If you see it from the POV of someone who considers sin and the sacrifice for sins as the most important thing, then at least the dwelling on the gore makes sense.

I'm going to be very interested to see what happens over the next few days as people finally get to see the film for real and have their own opinions as opposed to the ones fed them by their ministers/rabbis/local reporter/hopes/fears.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

If they are True Believers, and as such believe in the infallability of the Pope, where do people like Gibson's father (and probably Mel, too, who knows) come off with rejecting Vatican II and Pope John XXIII? See, this is where it becomes "Selective True Believing."

Lest you think I'm picking on the Catholics, I'm not. I resent fundamentalism of any stripe, and believe me, Jews have those in spades. There are orthodox jews who will not talk to me because I am a woman. I do not exist for them, except as a breeder of little orthodox clones, and even then, since I was raised Reform, they would think of me as an infidel anyway. Meanwhile, Islamic fundamentalists want to kill me because I'm 1)Jewish 2)an American and 3)a woman. Wow, I don't rate as human three ways! Woohoo! And let us not forget fundamentalist Protestants who are anti-Evolutionists and thus, pro-ignorance. Greatness. Gee, there are so many True Believers. . .I wonder which ones are right?

Huh. Now there's a question.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I just don't know how she's making that judgment since I've known her for over a decade and she's never once asked me my beliefs about the focus of my faith.

Er, because I'm not ragging on you specifically? I was raised Christian by a family that still practices a deep abiding faith; I'm basing my opinions on faith -- people of faith in your words -- on my own family, which spans several different sects.

As I say in another post, what I'm talking about isn't necessarily seen from within Christianity, but step outside and it suddenly becomes an issue. The way (some) Christians talk to other Christians, even in sects they disagree with and the way they talk to nonChristians is really night and day.

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

I could go into all the various discussions of "Old Testament" Christianity vs. "New Testament" Christianity, etc. I will say that I would bet very good money that those bloody depictions you saw of the cruxifiction were over 100 years old.

And Fundamentialists, of any stripe and any religion, tend to promote from the negative. Those who have prostelytized to you have no doubt reacted to you as a middle class white female. You'd get a very different pitch if you were of the lower class. Then they tend to focus on the aspect of being loved and accepted within the church. Around here, that's definitely the angle they take (and yes, I have been preached at and bothered by evangelists here -- just as racism is often worst within a given race, religious intolerance is often at its highest within the given religion).

I suspect we are talking about much the same thing, but you see a different source for it than I do. Really, you are talking about much of the difference of Old and New Testament Christianity -- and that gets into a whole 'nother can of worms. :-)

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

Yes, but how can you claim to understand where a Christian bases his or her faith if you haven't asked? I mean, if you haven't asked someone you've known for all these years, I find it hard to believe you've asked those who you merely encounter in passing. This is what I was trying to get at and what's bothered me about your initial assertion.

You're basically trying to ascribe the basis of people's faith here, saying that some believe more in the importance of the life and others in the importance of the death. The honest truth is that most are Christians because they believe in the miracle of the resurrection. Without that, Jesus becomes a good man -- one worthy of respect and emulation, but he may not become the cornerstone of a major world religion.

Then there are the Old Testament Christians who believe that you need to be saved because God's a vengeful God and that if you don't convert, you will be doomed to an eternity of torture. Yes, they're Christians because they believe in the resurrection, but they basically rest their beliefs on the God of the Old Testament, not the New. And that may be more of what you're actually talking about. They evangelize for two basic reasons: 1) they honestly believe it is for the non-believers good -- they *know* that without conversion a person will spend eternity in torment and they have to try and prevent that if they can, or 2) they believe in that torment for themselves and believe that they will never be good enough for redemption unless the convert the masses. There could well be more reasons, too, but that's what I've been told by those who practice that faith.

I don't believe in Old Testament Christianity, so I have a hard time speaking much beyond that, but in speaking with the OTC's here, that's what they've spoken of.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

I'm feeling a little defensive of Nea at the moment. Why is it not possible for her to have come to different conclusions about the nature of Christians? Just as I am certain you would not say you represent every Christian, so Nea is not saying that every single Christian falls into one of her two categories. If she did not seek out your specific opinion, does that invalidate the experiences she's had with other Christians?

Surely you are both coming at the same conclusion from different angles. I am an outsider observing, and it does seem to me that both of you are describing tolerance vs. intolerance, strict adherence to the Bible vs. interpretation of the Bible in order to follow the principles described within it. It's like Constitutional law. you either follow blindly or you interpret. And if adherence to the letter of the law = fixation on the description of the death of Christ, and interpretation = extrapolating one's own Christianity from the resurrection and LIFE of Christ, then in the end, you both mean the same thing. For me it's easier; I accept that there is some sort of Higher Power/God/Supreme Being - I can't understand how the Big Bang happened without a God creating the stuff that exploded. I just don't believe in religions, because, hey, look at all the crappy stuff that happens, that we've all described here. And once again, religion is coming between people who otherwise are simpatico. Just read the posts above.

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

Nearly forgot -- here, the controversy has entirely been over the anti-Semetism.

What is the wider controversy that you see? I mean, I know that some believe you should not portray Christ, etc., but is there something else beyond the amazing hype both by the entertainment industry and the various Christian groups.

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

Trust me when I say that fgwriter needs little defending from me. She's quite capable of having someone argue an opposing point and make her own arguments -- just as I am. I took exception to something she said in her original post and stated my opposite theory. We've now exchanged something like seven posts about it and are exploring new areas and enjoying the give and take. In my LJ, she asked for my input here, and I gave it.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

This is spinning far out of... control, really, I almost typed something else, but control's the only word that comes to mind.

Hauling back to my original thought process, while the anti-Semitism (I think we've both been misspelling it) has been the main topic of media discussion, what interests me now is the newish controversy - the question as to whether the movie is too violent. In particular, if it's too violent to achieve its goal as an outreach/evangelism project. I've heard mention of the violence before, but only in the last couple of days have I started to see letters to the editor and op eds and Google news articles and reviews that specifically argue whether the violence is over the top or not, and whether children should or should not see it.

That's the bit that interests me, particularly in context of having seen the Black Rose be literally thrown out of town by a Christian coalition for violence and its effects on children.

[cybergelfling.livejournal.com]

Last summer, a religiously-based group of people drove a major kink convention out of Ocean City. ... This spring, several religious groups are founding a major drive to take children to see what is, in essence, a torture snuff film. ... Can anyone explain that to me?

I can't explain it, but I run into dozens of similar contradictions when I talk to some of my Christian friends. Sometimes (IMO) it makes me very sad, because they SEEM as though they are following words and rules and regulations (if you will) without clearly thinking them through. For instance, I could point out this very contradiction to my friend, and she just won't 'get it.' It's part of what worries me about organized religion sometimes. But it's what THEY need I guess.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Hey, can we all take a deep breath? Not that I'm not flattered to have a defender, but Shay, Stratfordbabe and I tangle on a regular basis; the result of rather radically different worldviews. I think we both get ahold of the wrong end of the stick more often when we're reading each other's writing as opposed to talking, but we generally talk around it and figure things out. (The whole New Testament/Old Testament Christian thing is a new and interesting angle; I want to ponder on that before I respond.)

But on the whole, to quote the Bard, we "strive mightily but eat and drink as friends."

You are very right about tolerance vs intolerance, but now I'm going to start another hare because I love a good discussion. Is it possible to follow any written document, be it Constitution or Bible blindly? Isn't anything, even "it literally means this" an interpretation? Mel interprets "the rending of the veil of the temple" as an earthquake; Massachusets interprets the Constitution as *already* supporting gay marriage. Both the filmmaker and the judges can point to words and say "They literally mean..." but there are those who argue that it's a wrong interpretation.

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't realize that was a controversy. It's certainly something we've been discussing here, but more along the lines of the old "movies used to be better when they couldn't show everything" argument.

I haven't seen a lot of the Gibson interviews, so I honestly don't know this. Did he set out to make an evangelical tract? I mean, was that his intention? Or was he just trying to tell a story that he found powerful and felt very strongly about?

Here, at least, no one as seeing this as a way to convert the masses. Just as no one felt "The Ten Commandments" was meant to convert people, either. I think the assumption being made here is that it was a story that Gibson felt the need to tell and that this was the way he wanted to tell it.

I definitely think that the violence will keep people away -- but I think most of the people it will deter are those who would have wanted to see it to begin with (aka Christians). :-)

I do also know of Christian groups who are against the film because of its violence.

Sorry I hijacked the topic. I clearly must have misread your original post.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

You'd need to ask Antonin Scalia that question, I think.