Threatened By The Facts – From My Vault

The foolish rancor by homosexuals, politicians, and city officials nationwide that was brought about because the owner of Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy, gave an honest answer to a question–reminded me of similar behavior that was brought about by the movie “The Passion of the Christ.”

Homosexual activists and their sympathetic minions who drink and bathe in the river “Lethe” choose to forget that freedom of speech and opinion is not the exclusive domain of those who will be interred where the Lethe flows.

Their actions are emblematic of the reflexive, apoplectic histrionics that those who are fueled by immoral heterodoxies are quick to espouse. Refusing to succumb to the lies promoted (though not necessarily believed) by the godless does not make a person wrong.

The following syndicated article, “Threatened By The Facts,” appeared March 2, 2004.
*********************

I’ve still not seen Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” but in the face of all the brouhaha over it, I feel it necessary to comment.

I find it contemptible of pompous buffoons, puffed up and full of themselves, to arrogantly pontificate about that which they have little or no knowledge and zero understanding. Their postulations from positions of total ignorance is offensive not only to Christians, but to anyone of a sane and rational mind.

First of all, “The Passion” is a movie based on a “Man” in a book. The book is a historically accurate chronicling of events. Said events are factual and have been proven same. They have been attested to by historians from Josephus to modern-day archeologists.

The movie revolves around the “Man” who is central to said book. The movie specifically chronicles the historically factual death by crucifixion of said “Man.”

Now, I implore you: What pray tell is all of the commotion about? It is not the first movie about said “Man.” There have been stage plays and movies based on stage plays which have not engendered such angst. Notably “Jesus Christ Superstar” comes to mind. The high point (or low point, depending on one’s definition) of that movie was the appearance of the cast naked.

There have been movies depicting said “Man” as having a girlfriend. There were movies called “Jesus’ Son,” Jesus of Nazareth,” “From the Manger to the Cross,” “Jesus of Montreal,” “Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter” – I seem to remember even a movie about Jesus as a homosexual. All of the aforementioned have been listed as critically acclaimed presentations.

It further goes without saying that this certainly isn’t the first movie based on a book factual or otherwise. So again I ask: Why all the hubbub about this particular factually accurate historical dramatization?

I believe it is precisely because it is historically accurate, but not historically accurate in being true to factual occurrences alone. It is true in a way that touches the very core of our spiritual being.

I have heard many speak with consternation pursuant to the graphic violence depicted in the film. While it should be noted that no such outcry was heard with respect to the films “The Gladiator” or “Jason X,” there is no gentle way to portray a factual scourging or crucifixion. There is no gentle way to portray the severing by sword of a man’s ear.

The Gospel writers summed it up succinctly: “And they crucified Him,” they wrote. While said words stir the deepest feelings within Christians, they do not reflect the ghastly horror of the event.

“A Physician Testifies About the Crucifixion” by Dr. C. Truman Davis is recommended reading for all. He writes:

“I realized that I had for years taken the Crucifixion more or less for granted – that I had grown callous to its horror by a too distant friendship with our Lord. It finally occurred to me that, though a physician, I didn’t know the actual immediate cause of death. The Gospel writers don’t help us much on this point, because crucifixion and scourging were so common during their lifetime that they apparently considered a detailed description unnecessary.”

While I would argue it was precisely because of its horrific nature, accompanied by His pain and suffering, that the writers sought not to embellish it. Suffice it to say, it wasn’t nice, it wasn’t pretty – but in the end, it was necessary.

Which point I make specifically for the late Andy Rooney of “60 Minutes.” Even with my love of language, I find myself at a loss for words to adequately describe the foul taste his name leaves in my mouth.

He (and all those so inclined) can be unwittingly thankful that the death of this “Man” was necessary. Rooney is quoted as saying Gibson’s movie the crucifixion of this “Man” was “good for a laugh” but not much else. He calls believers “absurd.”

It might well have behooved Rooney to shell out the $9 he refused to pay to see the movie. It might also behoove those who deny the reality of the “Man” depicted to see it as well.

Because every one of them – every believer and non-believer alike – will one day find themselves before the Author who inspired the writers to write the Book from which Gibson’s account of the death of His Son was drawn.

And if they show up for that appointment with the attitudes they presently harbor, it will be too late.