Dr. Randy Lee, Director of the ELCA Department for Ecumenical Affairs, and I were pleased to represent ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson at a recent private screening of Mel Gibson's new film, "The Passion of the Christ." The screening was held at Willow Creek Community Church in Barrington, Illinois, with more than 5,000 people, mostly clergy, from all 50 US states in attendance.

We arrived more than an hour before the 1:00 p.m. screening only to find that the 4,500 seat Willow Creek sanctuary was already nearly full. 600 more people ended up sitting in an overflow area. On the many video screens throughout the auditorium were endorsement statements from church leaders. There were endorsements from evangelical Christian leaders such as Billy Graham, James Dobson, Robert Schuller and the late Bill Bright as well as Roman Catholic leaders such as Chicago's Francis Cardinal George, Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput and the Vatican's Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos as well as Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association and film critic Michael Medved. We were told that what we were seeing was still a rough cut and was the same version that those whose comments were up on the screen had viewed. What we viewed was the film without the credits and some of the music and special effects. It is presented in several biblical languages, all with English subtitles.

My subtitle above is my one line review - the film is part Gospel story and part myth with a generous amount of Hollywood and violence thrown in. It follows the Gospel stories of the last hours of Jesus' life from Gethsemane to the crucifixion with a brief resurrection scene at the end. The film is dark, violent ("R" rated - under 17 not admitted without parent) and well told. Much has been added to the Gospel story to fill in the gaps. In an interview after the film, Gibson stated that it was "the Gospels plus my imagination" and that he brought the story from the Gospels and added information from "history, visions, and medicine."

Neither Randy Lee nor I found this film to be anti-Jewish. It clearly makes the point that everyone is responsible for Jesus' suffering and death - Romans, some Jewish leaders, the rabble, ourselves.

Jesus' is beaten from Gethsemane to his crucifixion. The violence towards him is unrelenting. Jesus is bleeding and battered during most of this film. Thus, this is not a film for children or anyone who cannot handle the depiction of graphic violence.

Perhaps because of Gibson's Roman Catholic background, Mary, Jesus' mother, has a major role in the film. Gibson puts Mary at nearly all of the events of his trial, torture and crucifixion, and even has Mary kissing Jesus' feet when he is on the cross. There are many scenes like that one - not Biblical, but probable, many based in mystic and apocryphal writings as well as Roman Catholic tradition. I took notes of the non-Biblical scenes, events and characters and had a full page of them. There is a 

Satan character in a number of scenes, a character which is the personification of evil, appearing as a man, an aged baby and a snake. That character is very useful to show the responsibility that all of humanity has in the death of Jesus. Mary Magdalene, pictured in many of the film previews I have seen, is a minor figure in this film.

Should you see this film? Should you recommend it to others? Because of the level of violence, that is a hard question to answer. Willow Creek Church plans to take advantage of the film by having a five week Sunday series on Jesus' Passion during the Lenten season. (The film opens on February 25, western Christian Ash Wednesday). That's a very creative idea, I believe, to take advantage of the secular culture's interest in "our" story.

After viewing the film, I agree with the Consultative Panel on Lutheran/Jewish Relations (see their statement) that it is important for Christians (and others) who view this film to read the Gospel accounts before and/or after their viewing. The danger is that this film will become the Oliver Stone's "JFK" of Christ's Passion story, that is, that the public will only know the Passion story as it is depicted here with all of the non-Biblical material assumed to be Biblical or historic, a way I'm told many now only know the details of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy through Oliver Stone's fictional film, "JFK."

These are my comments and are not the "official" statement of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) which does not endorse or condemn any film. I add this because there has already been at least one news report that, based on the ELCA news story on the Consultative Panel's statement (see ELCA news story), that has stated "Lutherans Weigh in on Mel Gibson's 'The Passion'" with a link to "Mel Gibson fights back" after their article. Neither the Lutheran/Jewish relations panel nor I have endorsed or condemned this film.

Whenever Hollywood tells "our" story, we Christians have an opportunity for outreach, education and dialogue. "The Passion of the Christ" is such an opportunity.

The film’s official release date is February 25, the day on which most of the world’s Christians will celebrate Ash Wednesday and begin the Lenten contemplation of Christ’s arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection—including contemplation of the Christian conviction that the sinfulness of all human beings made this death necessary. The film’s opening is also significant timing for Mel Gibson, an active Roman Catholic, who has made a point of saying he wanted to be true to the gospels and has reportedly used only spoken Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin (with English subtitles) to help achieve that goal (although including Greek would be more historically correct).

Considering the early controversy surrounding this film and Gibson’s expressed goal of accurately representing the story of Jesus’ death, we need to prepare ourselves not only to be affected by the experience of the film but also to evaluate whether it portrays what scholars and theologians know about that death without increasing anti-Jewish sentiments.

Here are some questions to help us think about these issues:

Are the four gospels history or theology or both?
The stories of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were put in written form 40 to 80 years after the crucifixion and reflect each writer’s theological understanding of the meaning of Jesus’ life and death for Christian salvation. Mainstream Roman Catholic and Protestant Bible scholars consider the gospels a unique form that combines Jesus’ biography and Christian theology.

Why do the gospels in some places portray the Jews as the “bad guys”?
All four gospels were likely completed after the Roman destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (A.D.) and after various forces, including Roman persecution, heightened antagonism between followers of Jesus (both Jews and Gentiles) and the majority of Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. Despite this, it should be remembered that Jesus, the twelve disciples, and nearly all of the New Testament writers were themselves Jews. So the gospels reflect the writers' struggle to integrate their Jewish background and beliefs with their new Christ-centered identity and beliefs. This can help us understand why there are so many stories of Jesus debating issues of Jewish law, as well as the excessively negative portrayals of some Jewish leaders, such as Pharisees and high priests. They saw it as important to clarify how they could share so much with Jews but were not the same as Jews, so they highlighted the points of difference.

What do the gospels say about responsibility for Jesus’ death?
All four evangelists present God, not any human force, as the prime mover of the events that culminate in Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. The many references to fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy and the use of passive verbs in the original Greek manuscripts (such as Jesus’ prediction in Mark 8:31 and elsewhere that he would “be killed”) play down the role of human agents. Both these aspects of the narratives emphasize that no matter how tragic were Jesus’ suffering and death, they served the will and purposes of God.

In illustrating how Jesus' suffering and death were part of God's work to bring about human redemption, each gospel writer emphasizes varying aspects of the Passion story. These emphases lead to differing portrayals of both Jewish and Roman figures, differences shaped in part also by the historical setting in which each writer was working. For example, John dramatizes collaboration between the Roman Pontius Pilate and certain Jewish leaders (18:28-19:16.) Luke stresses the anguish of many among the Jewish people (23:27) watching Jesus being led to “the place that is called the Skull.” Matthew alone pictures Pilate making a display of washing his hands of any guilt for Jesus’ death and then has the entire “people” (a Greek term often referring to the Jewish people) call out, “His blood be on us and on our children” (27:25).

These details add to the effectiveness of each Passion account in its own gospel. Despite the fact that the broad outlines of the four Passion narratives do mostly coincide, we should not combine their details in an effort to create one composite story. Doing so violates the coherence of each. Nor can we simply choose from the individual portrayals those parts that fit our own purposes. Each gospel's narrative holds together and makes its witness as a whole.

Why does it matter how modern writers and film-makers portray responsibility for Jesus’ death?
Historically, many Christian religious and political leaders have taken out of context and misused gospel passages like Matthew 27:25 to justify persecution and even execution of Jews in their own eras as “Christ-killers.” Sadly, it was not until the second half of the 20^th century that the Vatican and major Protestant denominations officially condemned such anti-Semitic exploitation of biblical materials.

How can we prepare to see the film?
Read, prayerfully, all four gospel versions of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Note especially how each treats responsibility for Jesus’ arrest and death,  the role of the Jewish leaders, the role of Pontius Pilate, and the description of the crowds gathered in Jerusalem (who were not necessarily all Jewish nor all in favor of Jesus’ execution).

Ponder the potential damage to the welfare of modern-day Jews and to interfaith relations of any mass media production that does not sufficiently show the historical circumstances surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion. Be prepared to discuss the film’s impact with others. This may be even more important in our day when observers note an increase in anti-Jewish attitudes and crimes.