Passion requires compassion even from those who acknowledge it in others. Do your own thinking.

Even though "The Passion of The Christ" was recommended before it was released for public consumption by popular religious leaders that included Billy Graham, Robert S. Schuller and Jerry Falwell I was convinced before seeing it that it was a hyperbole and suspect.
On the second day the film came to the theaters I did see it. I wanted to determine for myself the value or disvalue of the film. Being an African American I was curious as to whether or not any black person had a role in this film that was being hailed as the greatest film of the century and highly praised by many American leaders.
The horror movie held my attention but I did not have any earthshaking or traumatic experience while watching it as many people have said they had while viewing the film. I attribute my low-profile reaction to the fact that I was already redeemed before I saw the film.
In a nutshell, these are my comments and impressions about this film:
First, it was a violent spectacle that involved an overkill. It struct me as a gang beating a dead horse and with every member of the gang wanting to have a piece of the action. Obviously, there was no way for any person to take the amount of punishment inflicted upon Jesus during the final hours of his earthly life and remain alive. Based on the amount of torturous treatment that Jesus received before his crucifixion reason would suggest that the crucifixion would be anticlimactic. But it was not. It was a grandiose, blood-sucking, mob-lynching and ghoulish-bent spectacle.
Second, even though the film made considerable use of Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin, it portrayed Jesus as a white man. Mel Gibson, why did you use Aramaic and not have an Arab or someone close in resemblance to one to portray Jesus? When the Jews infomed Jesus of their relationship to Abraham, he responded, "Before Abraham was born. I was." (John 8:58).
And why was Simon a Cyrenian from North Africa who was seized by those who crucified Jesus and compelled to help him carry the cross not portrayed as a black man? Simon of Cyrene was a black African. I was bemused to see one black man in the film who was visible for about a minute. He did not say or do anything. I could only wonder why was he there? I suppose his appearance was in keeping with a common practice in America of having at least one black person present at an event who behaves passively when action is going on all around him. The exception being when he is being a buffoon.
Third, the film shows Jews as being significantly responsible for the death of Christ while Pilate, a Roman and the Governor of Judea is presented as being honorable and excused from having any responsibility for the death of Jesus. While it is true that the Jews did help crucify Jesus, it was the Romans who had the political power and were chiefly responsible for crucifying Jesus. I have talked with two Rabbis who feel that the message is presented in a way that will promote anti-Semitism. I agree.
Fourth, the film relied heavily on Roman Catholic texts and tradition rather than Protestant texts. Consequently, Mary is accorded a much more prominent role in the crucifixion than can be reconciled with or deduced from Protestant texts. This may cause Christians to question as to whether Martin Luther, leader of the Reformation, was right when he said, "The just shall live by faith," not in Mary... but in Jesus.
Fifth, the film having no redeeming value was much ado about... gobbledygook, demagoguery, spurious and obsessed with violence. Despite the fact that this film is a huge money-maker and may become the greatest money-maker of any film ever I see it as a fad. However, I will not be surprise if there are people who will continue to beat a dead horse.
"The Passion of The Christ" bequeaths no legacy worthy to be embraced because it has no redeeming value for humankind.

Write:
Uriah J. Fields
P. O. Box 4770
Charlottesville, VA 22905

Copyright 2004 by Uriah J. Fields