|
Backlash and response to Gibson
by Jim Babka
March 1, 2004It is amazing the backlash and response Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of Christ has received.
It is incredible that a man who, according to historical records, claimed to be the Messiah, even the Son of God now 2,000 years ago is still with us. This is all the more remarkable when you consider that…
- He never traveled the world,
- He had a ministry that was probably less than three years long,
- He never wrote a book, and
- He received the State's most brutal form of execution with most of the world unaware something significant had just happened.
Is there anyone living right now who will be remembered 2,000 years from now, such that a moving pictures story of their life will garner such howls of consternation, such debate, and even better, such long lines and large crowds?
To me, this in itself is an apologetic – an evidence of the faith. No other figure of antiquity, even be it Buddha or Mohammed, can arouse such debate, not to mention such a following. People are flocking to the theaters. Sure some want to know what the fuss is about, but most, want to experience a deep understanding of the sacrifice of their Savior.
Hell's fury
Why was there so much pre-release vitriol?
Many are crediting Gibson with PR genius. But that's unfair. When it was first discovered he had spent more than $20 million on a movie that would be performed in two dead languages, everyone thought he was a lunatic. It was a sure loser.
Even as recently as the fall of 2003, when he couldn't seem to get a distribution deal, it seemed as if the odds were against him. Sure Gibson's strategy was ultimately savvy, but it's much more likely he fell into it on accident.
But that hasn't stopped the criticism. And the critics haven't worried about being consistent. Mel Gibson's Passion film was damned if it did, damned if it didn't. These folks would say whatever, or do whatever they could to stop it. They'd make charges, and those charges would be responded to, which merely meant they'd switch gears and go after Gibson from a new direction. For example, they started by saying that no one should see the movie because Gibson and his film were anti-Semitic. The movie had the power to turn us into brutal Jew-haters. As one website put it, "It was Gibson's lethal weapon against Jews." In mid-January, Frank Rich of the New York Times mocked Gibson's marketing strategy, predicting that the Passion producer's "Chutzpah and spiritual McCarthyism," would have a depressing effect on the film's impact and box office success. Instead Passion is already breaking records.
- It opened on 4000 screens, the most ever for an independent movie.
- On the first day it took in $26.6 million and should clear $70 million within the first full week of its release.
- It will undoubtedly be the highest grossing foreign language film of all time, surpassing Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
Once the Passion's box office success was no longer in question, along came Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes. "My question to Mel Gibson is: 'How many million dollars does it look as if you're going to make off the crucifixion of Christ?"
Attention Mr. Rich, Mr. Rooney on line two – he's calling to remind you to pay up on that bet over Gibson's flick.
But that's not stopping people from seeing the movie. So now, the new prudes, some of the very reviewers who would recommend a movie like Kill Bill, replete with violence and violent images, are saying that this film is nothing more than exaggerated violence: The Bloodiest Story Every Told. Alas, they figured it out! As Gibson told Diane Sawyer of ABC, "I wanted it to be shocking." The reason for that is clear. Mel Gibson wanted to demonstrate what the Son of God went through on that day 2,000 years ago. For Gibson, and as well as for Christians everywhere, Jesus Christ came for this very purpose. And through His death, and resurrection, He redeemed mankind.
As scripture indicates, true love is demonstrated by a man who lays his life down for his friends.
By virtue of his excruciating final hours, Jesus Christ is the best friend mankind ever had.
To witness the suffering and pain, in bloody detail, is to understand the effect of my sin. I now speak not only for myself in saying so – Mel Gibson would agree. Seeing our sins in such a light is, uncomfortable at best.
It makes the Gospel offensive.
Exposing behavior
With this film Gibson is teaching those of us on the traditional, Judeo-Christian side of society, an important lesson in how to fight a culture war…
Expose behavior. Show the consequences.
Last Fall, the Episcopal Church U.S.A. was in the throes of a tremendous internal feud, prompted by the brazen installation of a homosexual bishop. I say brazen because despite liberal white-washing attempts and endless abuse of the Hegelian Delphi Technique, there was no scriptural excuse, no scientific basis, and no sacramental logic to the decision. It was political correctness, pure and simple.
What was even more amazing was how the so- called conservatives handled the situation. Some played rough and tumble politics while others politely objected. It seemed no one was willing to, "Tell the truth in love."
At the Bishop's Consecration Ceremony there is a point at the beginning of the service where objections can be lodged – an, "If anyone objects, let them speak now or forever hold their peace," type of thing. Fr. Earle Fox, a prolific author and veteran of these Episcopal culture wars who has helped people exit the homosexual lifestyle, felt the call of God to go to the New Hampshire service, stand up in front of 6,000 people, and object.
It wasn't a call he wanted. But he did as he believed his Lord was leading. Here's his (partial) description of that event.
Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold began the part asking whether the assembled Body of Christ wanted to consecrate the candidate - ending in the invitation for anyone who had objections to come forward... Griswold explained to the assembly that the chance to protest was a normal part of a consecration service, and asked all to listen with courtesy to their brothers and sisters in Christ, and to show neither approval nor disagreement.
Then I was invited to give my objection to the consecration.
Bishops, priests, deacons, and layfolk -- it breaks my heart to be here... I am Earle Fox, a priest canonically resident in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. I thank the Diocese of New Hampshire and you all here for your courtesy in listening to those who object to the coming consecration. As with many, I believe that reason is a fundamental aspect of Biblical religion, and especially of the Anglican Way.
Whatever else homosexuality may be, it is at least a behavior. We are forbidden to judge persons, and yet required to judge behavior. It would thus be reasonable to inquire into the nature of such behavior for which approval is sought.
Research on homosexual behavior appears to be in substantial agreement from both sides of the fence, and gives a ballpark picture for persons active in the homosexual lifestyle -- though new research is both welcome and necessary.
For males, around 99% engage in oral sex. Approximately 91% engage in anal sex. 82% engage in "rimming", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus.
[At this point, Griswold, with a very embarrassed, flushed face, cut me off. He said, "We know where you are headed." I responded, "You know where I am headed? Then I have made my point?" He nodded, not happily. The fellow holding the microphone pointed to the next paragraph. I was not wanting to make a scene, so I complied. The rest of this paragraph was omitted. To their credit... the congregation remained silent.]
22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner. 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other. 4% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited.
The physical and spiritual health consequences of such behavior are devastating. There are 6000+ images of a loving God in this arena. Both reason and love would tell us that persons made in that loving image could not rightly engage in, bless, or consecrate such self-destructive behavior.
Thank you, again, for, in a very difficult situation, listening.
I could not hear clearly Griswold's response to the objections, but he is quoted by the Boston Globe as saying (predictably) that "the basis of the objections put forward are well known and, I think, have been considered by both this diocese and the general convention... We shall proceed."
If that was his response, he lied. There has been no public discussion of homosexual behavior, almost anywhere, let alone in the pathologically-polite Episcopal Church. And Frank Griswold has exercised a campaign of systematic manipulation to keep any such honest discussion from happening.
Griswold is not interested in the truth of the matter, and is largely responsible for the deluded state of many of the people in that arena. That means that Griswold (and his following of bishops) are guilty, surely in the eyes of God, of criminal pastoral malfeasance. They are promoting a lifestyle which is killing the very people they are telling us "love" each other, a lifestyle which takes from 30% to 40% off the lifespan of those who follow it. That systematic subversion of truth is treason against the Son of God and betrayal of those in his pastoral care. His refusal to deal with reality is denying the people who need it most an honest and straight forward discussion of their plight. God does not take lightly such abuse by the shepherds.
[However] from one point of view the objections could hardly have gone better. Griswold's interruption was a public admission that he could not tolerate an open discussion of the facts of homosexuality. Griswold exposed his vulnerability. He "knew where I was headed", so he knew of the facts with which I was confronting the assembly. He knows of their truth, but simply does not care that he is leading people into a death-style, not a lifestyle. The Light of truth had been shined on him, and the dark side had to shut me down. Which really meant that he had been shut down -- because he was not able to keep his own request to listen with courtesy.
Christians should expect persecution. Shining the light of truth on sin causes those who are enslaved to sin to lash back at the light – demand it be shut off.
Turn off the projector
So when the Frank Rich's and Andy Rooney's of the world objected to Gibson's film, I was neither stunned nor surprised. When movie reviewers complained that their "virgin eyes" and "tender ears" are so offended by Gibson's art that they believed someone should turn off the projector, I know they were not being objective.
The Cross is the greatest offense of all – even greater than Earle Fox's exposure of the sham of consecrating a man who left his wife and family to engage in a practice that is rejected by the very scriptures of the religion he claims to represent.
And this article will cause an offense. I may even lose friends or supporters because of it.
I'm sorry for that, but again, not surprised. Being offended by the presentation of truth doesn't make the truth wrong. Mel Gibson and Earle Fox both understand that the truth needs to be told, even if it means someone will hate you (or should I say, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends"?).
But how many Christians understand that… follow through on it?
Do you?
Copyright © 2004, CultureRepair.com
Comments to: webmaster@CultureRepair.com