The Passion page 2

people, is testimony to his bitterness towards religious belief in self-sacrifice.

Wieselter’s Ignorance

Wieselter’s hostility towards Christian belief in self-sacrifice for the sake of others is accentuated by his apparent ignorance of Christian doctrine. He says, in regards to Jesus’ suffering, “Why mourn, if his reward for his torment, and the world’s reward, is ordained? If Jesus is not exactly human, then it is not exactly dehumanization that we are watching, and that we are deploring.” I am no religious scholar, but as a layman even I know the answer to this question. (Really, does Wieselter really think no one before him in two thousand years ever thought to ask this question?) The answer is that Christians believe that Jesus was fully human, and experienced the pains and difficulties of life just as anyone would - even doubt. The Bible makes this clear when Jesus, just hours before his arrest, torture, and execution are about to happen, says “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” (Mathew 26:39). And again, at the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mathew 28:46). Divine or not, Christ is obviously disconnected from God the Father, in pain and in fear.

While this may sound like a contradiction with the claim that he was also fully divine, this is the mystery the church proclaims. Certainly, there is no room here to explain this notion in any detail. However, while Christian teachings provide some explanation, that the faith calls the relationship between the Father and the Son a mystery is an admission by the church that it does not fully understand how this is so. This is where a concept called humility is useful: one accepts that just because one can’t understand how something can be so, does not mean it isn’t so. In contemporary lexicon you might call it keeping an open mind. Wieselter should try it sometime.

In any case, the bottom line is that when someone dies as a result of self-sacrifice for the sake of others, the Christian heart accepts both joy and sorrow. Joy that the person was able to choose to do good, even under the pain, and fear, of death; and sorrow at their suffering and loss, and that the evil choices of others, permitted by the free will all humans have been given, made it necessary. Such are the story and teachings of Christ.

That people twist Biblical teachings to justify all kinds of torture is simply part of human nature, and has nothing to do with the Bible anymore than a gardening tool is responsible for somebody’s murder. That the Ku Klux Klan waves the American flag in support of its cause does not render the Declaration of Independence, the American raison d’etre, suspect, much less responsible for their evil.


		Response to Leon Wieselter's Hit Job in the March 8, 2004 Edition of The New Republic Page 2



people, is testimony to his bitterness towards religious belief in self-sacrifice. Wieselter’s Ignorance Wieselter’s hostility towards Christian belief in self-sacrifice for the sake of others is accentuated by his apparent ignorance of Christian doctrine. He says, in regards to Jesus’ suffering, “Why mourn, if his reward for his torment, and the world’s reward, is ordained? If Jesus is not exactly human, then it is not exactly dehumanization that we are watching, and that we are deploring.” I am no religious scholar, but as a layman even I know the answer to this question. (Really, does Wieselter really think no one before him in two thousand years ever thought to ask this question?) The answer is that Christians believe that Jesus was fully human, and experienced the pains and difficulties of life just as anyone would - even doubt. The Bible makes this clear when Jesus, just hours before his arrest, torture, and execution are about to happen, says “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” (Mathew 26:39). And again, at the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mathew 28:46). Divine or not, Christ is obviously disconnected from God the Father, in pain and in fear. While this may sound like a contradiction with the claim that he was also fully divine, this is the mystery the church proclaims. Certainly, there is no room here to explain this notion in any detail. However, while Christian teachings provide some explanation, that the faith calls the relationship between the Father and the Son a mystery is an admission by the church that it does not fully understand how this is so. This is where a concept called humility is useful: one accepts that just because one can’t understand how something can be so, does not mean it isn’t so. In contemporary lexicon you might call it keeping an open mind. Wieselter should try it sometime. In any case, the bottom line is that when someone dies as a result of self-sacrifice for the sake of others, the Christian heart accepts both joy and sorrow. Joy that the person was able to choose to do good, even under the pain, and fear, of death; and sorrow at their suffering and loss, and that the evil choices of others, permitted by the free will all humans have been given, made it necessary. Such are the story and teachings of Christ. That people twist Biblical teachings to justify all kinds of torture is simply part of human nature, and has nothing to do with the Bible anymore than a gardening tool is responsible for somebody’s murder. That the Ku Klux Klan waves the American flag in support of its cause does not render the Declaration of Independence, the American raison d’etre, suspect, much less responsible for their evil.

	The Charge of Anti-Semitism As for the protestation of Wieselter and many others that the movie is anti-Semitic, the evidence provided is that Jewish characters in the movie are portrayed in an unsympathetic light. They argue that Gibson’s claim that he was merely reflecting the story of the Gospels is not true because he actually veered from the Gospel. But, when they get around to actually giving examples of where exactly did Gibson depart from the Gospels, they take two approaches, both flawed. First, they cite examples like the stylistic presence of the devil and little demons in certain scenes, that are not mentioned in the Gospels. But, these examples have nothing to do with how Jews are represented in the movie. The critics by-pass the opportunity to offer examples, of where exactly Gibson portrays Jewish voices in a negative way that is not found in the Gospels, because they don’t exist. That’s why, every time a critic decrying the anti-Semitism of the movie is asked for an example of where Gibson was not faithful to the Gospels, they cite an example that in no way affected how Jews are portrayed in the movie. The second approach is to change the subject away from the Gospels altogether. Wieselter says “Gibson pleads that these are nothing but the elements of the Gospel narratives, but the Gospels are not clear and reliable historical documents….after all, there is no such thing as gospel truth…” Wieselter misses entirely that while he may not see the Gospels as “clear and reliable,” Christians do. After all, the Gospels are the bedrock of the faith. The only reason secular scholars do not

			click here to continue
			click here to continue

The Charge of Anti-Semitism