Read this critisism of the critics it is a much more interesting criticism than this blog.

I wrote a really long reply to an email I got... and I realized that it reavealed some aspects of me that Id like to keep in this online journal. It is part of my processing of life, and my thoughts about stuff.

I know i am not a good writer... Im a better thinker than a writer.

--------------------------

The passion film is not called "the Gospel according to Gibson" But it is "the passion of the Christ" passion \Pas"sion\, v. i. To suffer pain or sorrow. It is a close-up of Jesus 12 hours of a 33 year old life... BUT Its a close-up of the most critical point in human history.

Because it is art, it blurs the criticism aspect. When I hear people say that it should have a more victorious tone, and more resurrection, it reminds me of the CCM critics of the 80's that really got on Christian artists for not having the name "Jesus" in their lyrics more often.

As a piece of art, it is what it is. You might say "i would do it differently" but when it comes right down to it, you can't really say that it is "wrong" unless you can prove it historically.

The second Lord of the Rings films started out with the assumption that you already seen the first film. The Passion assumed that you already knew who Jesus was and maybe a bit about his teachings, and what He was about. Otherwise the whole movie wouldn’t make much sense... there is no prelude information. And it is sort of like the Titanic film... you sort of know what the ending is going to be.

I read that Gibson didn't design the film to be evangelistic, and so of course it is important that people know the Jesus was the source of eternal salvation... But again, if it wasn’t an evangelistic film, I really don’t think it will be (or was designed to be) the outreach tool of the century.

The sacrifice of Jesus could not have happened without suffering – the suffering is clear throughout the entire of scripture... even the prophets foretold that... and foretold the "stripes" that bring the healing (which i believe is spiritual in nature, and not necessarily physical) And the suffering would have been pointless without the sacrifice.

> What is the
>appropriate separation between suffering and sadism? How do you depict
>and view actual torture without its sadism becoming pornographic?

That certainly is the question I continue to struggle with. I understand the questioning there. How should we view "reality" and how much do we try to shut out "reality" and focus on positive messages.

Would you consider watching video of people dying in Africa (or Haiti) sadistic?

What if they made a show about it on TV? What if that show was sensitively produced?

What if that show aired every week, or every day?

What if they came out with the cable channel "the suffering channel?" 24 hours a day documentaries of people suffering"

There must be some balance there for sure that is healthy. To ignore it and turn away from the violence and pretend it didn't happen - well that cheapens it.

I suppose if someone lives in a box and only watches this film, and they never go to church, or sing praise songs, or read the bible, or anything - then their spiritual life might be skewed... but i believe this film actually brings some balance to an over fluffed, overstuffed American squeaky clean church.

also on the question of "the balance of how much do we show" Our culture really likes everything to be perfect and neat and clean.

I remember somewhere around the mid 80’s during that really bad drought in Ethiopia they always were showing starving people on the news. After a while, I remember people saying things like “im tired of always seeing those people on the news” etc. Americans want to live in a little bubble – so should we NOT show suffering around the world because Americans don’t want to look at the ugly?

Another story:
When they were pulling the tubes out of my dads body, to pull the plug... to prepare him for death, they asked me to leave the room. - they said you won't want to see this, its ugly etc... the nurse actually got up in my face about it.

I loved my dad dearly, and it was really tough - but I didn't want someone to cover over reality... I wanted the truth. And I suppose, I wanted to be with him at that difficult hour.

Can you believe that they gave my dad a shave?? so he could look nice to die?

When we - the family came back in the room, he was all "cleaned up," and it only took him minutes to breath his last breath. Death is horrible, but in America we like to think it is something nice. They had drugged him so much that he didn’t move or feel a thing. That’s how nice it was.

But the doctors messed up... when my dad flat lined, and alarm went off in the room and all the doctors came barging in to try to figure out how to shut off the alarm etc. I could tell, they didn't want us to have that alarm - to remind us that he was gone.

so we cried and cried, and sorrow filled the room. And I tell you that if someone would have come into that room and said "don’t be sad - don't you all know that your dad is alive in heaven, dancing for joy – you should be happy!" at that moment, i may have flipped. The bible says that "a sad face is good for the heart." People need to feel that sometimes.

The American tradition nowadays is that you leave the casket and don’t even bury the dead… let someone else take care of that… keep death at an arms length. I couldn’t do that. We actually buried my father. We brought shovels, and piled the dirt in on top of him. Was it hard? Yeah but facing that reality was important for me to heal. That part was really hard for some of my uncles (his brothers) but I know it was good too.

Here’s reality – death ain’t nice. It is ugly – no matter how you slice it.

Sure we know the truth... sure we know that dad is in heaven, but grieving is still important… and sometimes grieving takes time – but healthy grieving is the process that moves you toward healing.

This film is causing people all over the place to grieve because of what Jesus did for them, that grieving time is important. In time it brings healing. Showing the ugly side of suffering and the ugly side of death is ok. It should bring healing in the long run.

I guess it comes back to this question: How does the film motivate you (or me?)

What about “Faces of death?” It is a video series of real live footage of people dying brutal deaths – it is nasty and brutal. In one video a guy gets ripped up by a bear. Sounds like something the Romans would have liked.

I have a problem with people watching stuff like that for entertainment. So how does watching something like that motivate the viewer? How does it make them feel?

BUT what about the Holocaust museum? How does viewing that stuff move us and motivate us?? Is it redemptive? Does it change your life – even if only in a small way?

How can the blood and suffering of Christ be beautiful??

I’ll bet that if an artist painted a picture of my family with shovels in hand burying my father it could be beautiful… the picture of a family together grieving, and working together – caring for a loved one to the very end…

Can you understand the beauty in that? Sure it is tragic, and wonderful, and awful all at the same time. Beauty is not always pretty.

Our Mennonite hymnal doesn’t have songs like “the old rugged cross” (which by the way, I transcribed, and led at Zion 2 weeks ago) and in several cases, they took songs that mentioned the “blood” and rewrote the lyrics to take out the blood. Of course that was perfectly legal, because it was before copyright laws existed. Those Mennonites wanted to cover over the fact of the blood – and take it out of the hymnal. They don’t want people to see the ugly… only the good. I think that is flat out wrong. They took someone else’s art, and messed it up… they took the crux of the Gospel, and cheapened it.

I don’t propose to know how much Jesus suffered. No one knows that. All I know is that he suffered and bled and died at the hands of the Romans. And he did it for me... how can I not surrender my life