IT IS WHAT IT IS

by Brad R. Mix

The dust has not yet settled from the release of Mel Gibson’s box office mega-hit, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. The ground and record breaking "art film" raked in an astounding $125 million in its first five days. That’s $125 million US dollars – about $165 million in Canuck (aka Canadian) dollars – more than I make in a year. There has been, and will continue to be, a flurry of controversy surrounding the film and its creator, some fair and some just stupid. From my perspective, the bottom line is this – it is what it is.

The film critics --
On one hand, I’m finding the flood of extreme reactions from the so-called film critics more and more foolish and counter-productive. On the other hand, through their ceaseless banter and counter-banter, and in an effort to get their voice to the top of the film critic heap, they have helped to get everyone talking about the film. So, thanks to all of them.

Mel Gibson’s spiritual status --
Mr. Gibson has taken fire from all sides. He’s been put on a spiritual pedestal by many. His brand of traditional Catholicism has led some to say, "How could anything good or true come from him?!" He’s been branded a blood-thirsty monster by many who say, "Just look at his body of work, it’s all meaningless blood and guts!" All of these, in my humble opinion, are beside the point. I don’t have to believe that Gibson’s religion is right or even legitimate to think that this film has merit. Let the film speak for itself. It is what it is. Gibson never claimed to be a theologian, a Biblical scholar or an expert in New Testament studies. He’s a filmmaker. He made a film about an historical event that dramatically impacted and changed his life. That’s all I have to say about that.

The film is too violent --
There’s no doubt about it, the film is intense. But it’s not over the top. In fact, I was expecting it to be more graphic than it was. I don’t really get people who are so violently upset about the amount of pain and suffering depicted. I’m not sure what they were expecting (maybe they didn’t realize there was a flogging and a crucifixion involved). Seriously, I think our western, everything-needs-to-be-nice-and-comfortable mindset has offended some of the more sensitive in our midst. A no-pain gospel would have been nice. It’s what the western church has come to preach. But it’s not anywhere in the Bible. Nowhere.

Barbara Nicolois of Church of the Masses says that those who think The Passion is too graphic are like the apostles who ran from Christ’s crucifixion and attributes this to "a failure of courage, and the consequence of a weak faith."

Brian Godawa, author of Hollywood Worldviews, says it with a little less of an edge. "The brutal realism of Christ's suffering points to the depth and costliness of atonement, which was achieved for God's people through His once-for-all sacrifice. To show anything less is to diminish the gospel. Watching this movie, with its in-your-face grisly realism, provides a much-needed corrective to our modern pseudo-gospels with their bloodless Jesuses."

Isaiah 53 says, "Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer." (NIV) Another translation says that "it pleased the Lord to bruise Him". That sounds pretty bad to me. The spiritual alienation and agony Christ went through, combined with the physical suffering, was more than anyone else in history went through. He took on Himself all our pain, suffering, sorrows, sickness and violence to give us life. He knew what was coming. He chose to suffer it. It was brutal.

The film is inaccurate --
Debating whether or not Gibson’s film was 100% accurate really misses the point of the film. It is not scripture. It was not intended to be. Why are we not having the same discussion about all the other "Jesus" movies released? What about the deviations from Tolkein’s original story in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings? That too must be shocking to those who are upset about the idea the cross might have had a slightly different shape, or that the nails would have gone through his wrists instead of his hands, or that the wind during the crucifixion would have been blowing from the west, not the east. Does "can’t see the forest for the trees" have any bearing on this part of the discussion? The film is clearly not in any type of gross violation of scripture. Let’s stop trying to find the needle in the haystack, because if we do actually find it, no one really cares anyway.

The film is anti-Semitic --
I don’t see it. As a matter of fact, the film is just as hard on the Romans as it is on the Jews. And I would hazard a guess that if there was a holocaust film that told the graphic and violent story of a Jew captured, beaten, tortured and killed in a gas chamber, Jews and Christians alike would champion it, even if it was R rated (hey, wasn’t Schindler’s List R rated?). I’m siding with those that aren’t using the film for political gain. It is what it is. And one thing it’s not is anti-Semitic.

Christians shouldn’t be using it for an "evangelistic opportunity" --
I’m scratching my head about this one. No doubt, some are using the film to "ambush" unbelievers. Accosting people with your faith has always been a very bad idea. But like it or not, even without outside influence, this film is evangelistic. There are people who say, "It’s a work of art, why do we need to manipulate it by making it a tool of religious propaganda? Why can’t it just be good art?" That's like saying the Bible "is just good literature". The Bible, by its nature, is evangelistic. Further, the message of the cross will always carry with it a life changing, yet controversial message. If you put it in a film the message will naturally tumble out. The idea that people shouldn’t be using the film as a discussion springboard not only makes no sense from a standpoint of Christ’s commission for us to be witnesses, it also puts art ahead of faith. Confusion on this issue will have some very serious long-term effects – if you catch my meaning. By its very nature, The Passion will evangelize. It is what it is.

People shouldn’t be reacting unquestioningly positive to the film --
Why are there so many so-called film critics demeaning and discrediting the feelings of people who have watched The Passion? Those deeply impacted in a positive way have been referred to as "sheep", just mindlessly following the big evangelical leaders. People weeping aloud in the middle of a theatre is an unusual thing, to be sure. But that’s the beauty of film and the personalized impact it can have on all types of people from all types of backgrounds. What right does some self-proclaimed film expert have to tell me or anyone else how to react to or feel about a film?

I’ve had people tell me that Christians who are sensitive to graphic films will not like The Passion. This has already proven to be a flat out wrong prediction. There are all kinds of Christians, many of whom I know, who have shown the discernment to know why this film is different. The cross in all its shame and pain is an inseparable part of those who have truly been crucified with Christ. They know it’s different from any other suffering or pain depicted in any other movie. They go. They watch. They weep. I think they’re allowed to.

In the end --Thankfully, not everyone is listening to the nay-sayers. Obviously, a record number of movie-goers are pulling out their wallets and telling Gibson his story is at least worth a look-see. The undeniable reaction has been what many of us were hoping for – people are talking about Jesus. This is one thing that many of the Christian critics have completely overlooked. People are watching the film and asking questions they’ve never asked before. I’ve heard of people asking, "Did that really happen? Did He really do it for me?" I’ve heard of theatres full of people sitting silent and dumbfounded through the entire credits. One lady told me her friend said, "Thankfully that didn’t really happen." She was able to say to her friend, "Yes, it actually did happen."

The Passion will continue to stimulate discussion for years to come. Despite those who say it’s anti-Semitic, inaccurate, too violent, too Catholic or too whatever, it is what it is. And just as God uses you and me in all our prejudices, lack of love and wrong-headed theological understandings, He will use this film to draw people to Himself.

If I had created The Passion of the Christ I would have done it differently, no doubt. But I didn’t make it. Sure it has its problems, but as Gibson says, it’s only one man’s idea about a piece of history as found in the gospels of the New Testament. Therefore, I say, it is what it is. If you can’t live with that, then I guess you can’t.

Brad Mix is the Vice President of Crown Video, a Christian video and DVD distribution company based in Edmonton, Canada. Other industry involvement includes Vice President of the Board of Directors for International Christian Visual Media, an association of Christian filmmakers and distributors from various organizations around the world. Brad and his wife Sandy have four children.

Chat Calendar

Resources

IT IS WHAT IT IS

Read More