CHRIST CAUSES CONTROVERSY

Start talking about Jesus Christ and controversy can quickly arise. 

Not long after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection Jewish Christian leaders, Peter and John, went to join other Jews at the Jerusalem Temple to pray.  At the Temple gate they saw, spoke to, and healed a crippled man in Jesus’ name.  The amazement of onlookers led to questions and Peter talking to them about Jesus brought before Pilate and eventually killed, but then raised to life by God.  This led to their overnight imprisonment; questioning by Jewish religious leaders; demands that they never again speak about or in the name of Jesus – especially as resurrected Lord; further threats against them if they continued to talk about Jesus.

These two Jewish believers in Jesus, Peter and John, told the Jewish religious leaders in response:

Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.  For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.    (See Acts 3:1-4:31)

Some time later, Peter and others, after talking to people about Jesus, were again jailed, and also beaten, threatened and again told to be silent about Jesus.  These Jewish believers in Jesus again responded to the threats of their Jewish religious leaders: We must obey God rather than men!   (See Acts 5:12-42)

Jewish believers kept talking to their friends, acquaintances, and even some of the Jewish religious leaders became believers. Then one of the believers, Stephen, talked about Jesus to a crowd of listeners.  On the outskirts of the crowd was a young Jewish religious leader called Saul.  He came from a place called Tarsus.  Some in the crowd became angry and turned the crowd into a violent mob, stirring them up to the point where they ended up stoning Stephen to death. Saul gave his approval of this violent action and himself became involved in  trying to destroy the growing community of Jewish believers in Jesus.  (See Acts 6:7-8:3)

But, on the road to Damascus, Saul, a Jewish religious leader and a Roman citizen, had a confrontation with the resurrected Jesus that led to his conversion. He changed his understanding, faith and name.  (See Acts 9:1-25)

And then he, Paul, began to talk about Jesus wherever and whenever he was able.

He soon discovered that talking about Christ caused controversy and he went through all sorts of opposition and hardship.  (See 2 Corinthians 11:16-33)

History has seen many repeats of the stories of rejection, threat, intimidation, opposition, persecution and more mentioned in the Bible regarding those who dared to talk about Jesus.  Followers discovered, over and over again, that talking about Christ causes controversy.

And so it continues today.

When American/Australian actor and film producer, Mel Gibson, announced that, through the medium of a movie, he was going to be talking about Jesus – particularly his last twelve hours of suffering ending with his death (and with a brief glimpse of the resurrection) –  it caused a controversy which soon snowballed.

Long before Gibson’s film was finalized and shown to the public, a dirty tricks campaign by some of the media, some Liberal Jews and some so-called Christian scholars unleashed an unholy effort to discredit both Gibson and his film. Extreme accusations of anti-semitism, and other inflammatory language was bandied about for quite some time.

Questions were raised about Mel Gibson’s Catholicism (as extreme) and about his father’s holocaust denial views, in an apparent effort to discredit him by association.

According to one (prominent Jewish) commentator, Michael Melved, the nastiness began with an article published in the New York Times in March 2003.  The author of the article, Christopher Noxon, ‘had it in’ for Gibson as a result of a family feud over Gibson’s funding of the construction of a traditionalist Roman Catholic church. Noxon focused his article on Mel Gibson’s then 84-year-old father, Hutton Gibson and his Holocaust denial and some other rather way-out viewpoints.  With speculation and supposition it was made to appear that Mel Gibson shared his father’s views (which both denied) and that the film could have a ‘Jew-hating agenda’. 

And all this before shooting the film footage had even been completed.

The American Jewish Anti-Defamation League was a major contributor to fuelling the speculation about anti-Semitism and a ‘Jew-hating agenda’ for Gibson’s film.  The ADL, without permission, got hold of an early (pre-Aramaic) script and passed it on to the US Conference of Catholic Bishop.  The Bishops condemned the film and played into the hands of the ADL with suggestions that it might foster anti-Semitism.  They later offered Gibson an apology – but only after he threatened to take legal action over their public comments based on a stolen script.

If all that wasn’t enough, Abraham Foxman, executive director of the ADL kept up his claim that the film could ‘fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate.’

Foxman, and a colleague, Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, the ADL’s interfaith consultant, saw a pre-release presentation of the movie and came out with a media release:

ADL  Press Release Anti-Semitism: USA

ADL Screens Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of The Christ” ; Says Film’s Portrayal of Jews “Painful to Watch”

New York, NY, January 22, 2004 … After two of its representatives attended a screening of Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of The Christ” at a religious gathering in Florida, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today renewed its concerns about the film’s potential to promote anti-Semitism through its “painful portrayal of Jews” as being responsible for the death of Jesus.  The film is scheduled for national release on Ash Wednesday, February 25.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, who attended the screening at the Beyond All Limits Conference in Orlando along with Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, ADL Interfaith Consultant, issued the following statement:

We were saddened and pained to find that “The Passion of the Christ” continues its unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus.  There is no question in this film about who is responsible.  At every single opportunity, Gibson’s film reinforces the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the Crucifixion.

What Foxman, Bretton-Granatoor and the ADL did not acknowledge, was that both of them deliberately lied to get in to see the film.  Because of his virulent criticism, Foxman didn’t get an invitation to one of the many special pre-release showings of the movie to religious leaders.  This didn’t stop Foxman.  He and Bretton-Granatoor deceptively snuck into an evangelical pastors’ conference in Orlando, Florida, by registering as Christian pastors of a fictitiously manufactured ‘Church of Truth’!!

The nearest to an open acknowledgement of their deceit in their press release was the concluding comment:

‘It’s sad that we could not see this film at the invitation of Mel Gibson, but instead by finding an opportunity to be part of an audience.’          Not exactly an admission of deliberate deceit!

Foxman was not at all apologetic for his deception (or for the ADL’s earlier involvement with the ‘stolen’ script):

‘I believe that the sin of anti-Semitism is greater than, you know, my going in uninvited. And I’m certainly not sorry that I did it.’

Other Jewish leaders were able to openly attend pre-release screenings without resorting to Foxman’s deliberate deception, and were warmly welcomed – including David Elcott, interfaith director for the American Jewish Committee. Elcott stated that he was ‘completely upfront’ about his affiliation when he saw the movie in Chicago.

Openness and warm welcomes didn’t lesson criticism on the part of some Jewish leaders.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, is president of Toward Tradition, a bridge-building organisation providing a voice for all Americans who defend the Judeo-Christian values.  He is also a radio talk show host.  

Rabbi Lapin had, several times, invited Foxman to appear on his radio show – but Foxman rejected the invitations.  Lapin has expressed deep concern over the extreme and unrepresentative views of a minority of Liberal Jews like Foxman.  In commenting on some of Mel Gibson’s Jewish critics, Lapin has pointed out inconsistencies, bigotry, intolerance and more – on his radio talk shows and in his articles. He has stated:

Those Jewish organizations that have squandered both time and money futilely protesting Passion, ostensibly in order to prevent pogroms in Pittsburgh, can hardly be proud of their performance. They failed at everything they attempted. They were hoping to ruin Gibson rather than enrich him. They were hoping to suppress Passion rather than promote it. Finally, they were hoping to help Jews rather than harm them….

However, instead of helping the Jewish community, they have inflicted lasting harm. By selectively unleashing their fury only on wholesome entertainment that depicts Christianity, in a positive light, they have triggered anger, hurt, and resentment. Hosting the Toward Tradition Radio Show and speaking before many audiences nationwide, I enjoy extensive communication with Christian America and what I hear is troubling….

I consider it crucially important for Christians to know that not all Jews are in agreement with their self-appointed spokesmen. Most American Jews, experiencing warm and gracious interactions each day with their Christian fellow-citizens, would feel awkward trying to explain why so many Jewish organizations seem focused on an agenda hostile to Judeo-Christian values. Many individual Jews have shared with me their embarrassment that groups, ostensibly representing them, attack Passion but are silent about depraved entertainment that encourages killing cops and brutalizing women. Citing artistic freedom, Jewish groups helped protect sacrilegious exhibits such as the anti-Christian feces extravaganza presented by the Brooklyn Museum four years ago. One can hardly blame Christians for assuming that Jews feel artistic freedom is important only when exercised by those hostile toward Christianity. However, this is not how all Jews feel.

From audiences around America, I am encountering bitterness at Jewish organizations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism. Christians heard Jewish leaders denouncing Gibson for making a movie that follows Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion long before any of them had even seen the movie. Furthermore, Christians are hurt that Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian Scripture “really means.”…

Many Christians who, with good reason, have considered themselves to be Jews’ best (and perhaps, only) friends also feel bitter at Jews believing that Passion is revealing startling new information about the Crucifixion. They are incredulous at Jews thinking that exposure to the Gospels in visual form will instantly transform the most philo-Semitic gentiles of history into snarling, Jew-hating predators….

One of the directors of the AJC recently warned that Passion “could undermine the sense of community between Christians and Jews that’s going on in this country. We’re not allowing the film to do that.” No sir, it isn’t the film that threatens the sense of community; it is the arrogant and intemperate response of Jewish organizations that does so.

(From his article: ‘Why Mel Owes One to the Jews’ -  see:

 http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Passion_Feb_2004.htm  - Ironically the American Jewish Committee’s slogan is: ‘Advancing Democracy, Pluralism and Mutual Understanding’)

Another Jewish critic to slam Gibson’s The passion of the Christ movie has been Rabbi Tovia Singer.  Without having seen the movie Singer, in late 2003, stated: ‘If it turns out that the controversial film is as brutal as the already-released trailer, then Israel may have to absorb a massive flight of European Jewry this coming spring, when the Jews get all the credit for committing deicide.’   

He even went as far as to claim: ‘If in fact it turns out that Gibson relied on the Christian Bible for the script of The Passion, every advance in Jewish-Christian relations over the past half-century may be in jeopardy.’

(see: http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/

articles/471_will_mel_gibson_s_fi.htm)

An editorial comment in Christianity Today,  November 2003, suggested that comments such as these translated into:

‘If you really believe what the Bible says, you have no choice but to be anti-Semitic. No Bible-believing church teaches that way, but Singer and others are clearly forging a false link between anti-Semitism and New Testament narrative. So in reality, it’s not filmmaker Gibson who’s giving anti-Semites an excuse to use The Passion for hate; it’s Gibson’s critics.

Comments like Singer’s and those of the ADL have the potential to drive a tremendous wedge between biblical Christians and Jews. By arguing that trust in the gospel narratives is tantamount to hatred, Gibson’s critics greatly frustrate cooperation and friendship.’

The views of Singer, Foxman and his ADL, and a few others like them have not been representative of the vast majority of Jews in America or Australia.  Comments from Australian Jewish leaders have been much more moderate and balanced.

Well-known evangelist Billy Graham had a pre-release viewing with Mel Gibson in late 2003. In contrast to some of the inflammatory comments from some quarters, following the screening Graham issued a press release in which he stated:

‘I have often wondered what it must have been like to be a bystander during those last hours before Jesus’ death. After watching “The Passion of the Christ,” I feel as if I have actually been there. I was moved to tears. I doubt if there has ever been a more graphic and moving presentation of Jesus’ death and resurrection - which Christians believe are the most important events in human history.

The film is faithful to the Bible’s teaching that we are all responsible for Jesus’ death, because we have all sinned. It is our sins that caused His death, not any particular group. No one who views this film’s compelling imagery will ever be the same.’

Billy Graham’s statement: ‘No one who views this film’s compelling imagery will ever be the same,’ has been confirmed after the film finally came to the public screens in February.

Church leaders around Australia, the USA and elsewhere (where the film had been screened) commented on the impact of the film on their congregations, including in increased attendances at Easter Services.

One outstanding example of Graham’s statement came with the confession of murder by a 21-year-old Texas man after he saw The passion of the Christ in early March 2004. 

The film so challenged Dan R. Leach that he gave himself up to police and confessed to the murder, in January 2004, of his girlfriend Ashley N Wilson.  The authorities had tentatively ruled her death as a suicide.

Jesus Christ continues to be Controversial, Challenging and Life-Changing.