John Whitehead's Commentary
Christ Is Controversial in Any Age
The fact that Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is causing such a firestorm of controversy should not be surprising to anyone who has read the New Testament. Although many people, including Christians, attempt to depict Jesus Christ as a meek, harmless friend of the world, this is not the picture found in the gospels. Nor is it true of the book of Revelation where Christ is portrayed as an avenging angel.
Far from being passive and meek, Jesus in real life was both controversial and dogmatic. Indeed, as British theologian John R. W. Stott explains in Christ the Controversialist (1970), true Christianity is inevitably and "essentially dogmatic." Why? "It purports to be a revealed faith," Stott writes. "If the Christian religion were just a collection of the philosophical and ethical ideas of men (like Hinduism), dogmatism would be entirely out of place. But if God has spoken (as Christians claim), both in olden days through the prophets and in these last days through His Son, why should it be thought 'dogmatic' to believe His Word ourselves and to urge other people to believe it too?"
Jesus was not "broad-minded" in the popular sense of the word. He was not prepared to accept as valid all views on every subject. Jesus was not afraid to dissent from official doctrines. Even Christ's disciples referred to him as a "hard" or difficult man. In other words, he wasn't in tune with his feminine side.
Christ knew how to be wrong (or not "politically correct") and to expose what he saw as error. He called his Jewish counterparts "blind guides," "wolves in sheep's clothing," "whitewashed tombs" and even "a brood of vipers."
Jesus was aggressive. And he was literally on the offensive, with a message that offended those around him to the point that he was killed for it. One illustration of this fact is Christ's action in the temple at Jerusalem. As the book of Matthew reveals:
Jesus...drove out all those who were buying and selling [in the temple]. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"
In addition, Jesus would not permit anyone to carry goods through the temple, and he even blocked the doorways.
Christ also had a plan to take his message to the world and commanded his disciples to do likewise. As found in Matthew:
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
The early Christians took this mandate with the utmost seriousness. "The apostles also were controversialists," notes Stott, "as is plain from the New Testament Epistles, and they appealed to their readers 'to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.' Like their Lord and master they found it necessary to warn the churches of false teachers and urge them to stand firm in the truth."
There are many examples of confrontation and controversy caused by Christ's followers in the New Testament. For example, the apostle Paul preached in a Jewish synagogue in Thessalonica, with the result that some came to believe what he was saying. However, those who opposed Paul formed a mob and incited a riot. In this case, mere preaching caused the confrontation. And lest we forget, many of Paul's letters in the New Testament were written from jail cells.
Thus, the apostles would hardly have been described as men who "turned the world upside down," as the book of Acts puts it, if they had casually explained their concept of the truth or allowed other points of view to be taken on an equal basis. As anyone knows who takes a stand on an issue, truth and confrontation often go hand in hand.
And that's where Mel Gibson finds himself with his film portrayal of Christ. However, Gibson's film is not the first to stir such a controversy. Martin Scorsese's 1988 The Last Temptation of Christ, a poignant statement of religious and artistic vision, fanned the flames of wrath of the Christian Right. They publicly protested the film and fought it tooth and nail--indeed, before most even saw the movie--which killed any possible box office success for the film.
Since the earliest days of Hollywood, directors have been drawn into the compelling story of Christ's troublesome existence. Most have presented visual representations of Jesus as pious, sugary and soft. He has often been surrounded by an altogether artificial aura--not as the Jew he was but as a Caucasian with long auburn hair. And any attempt by filmmakers to emphasize the true humanity of Jesus--which most of the Gospels in fact do--or the stringent urgency of his message has met with protest.
We live in curious times. On the one hand, we are increasingly seeking something outside ourselves, such as God, to give order and a sense of meaning to our lives in our chaotic world. On the other hand, when we are given a realistic glimpse of what God may really be like, we recoil if it doesn't fit our preconceived notions. In the process, our modern God has become one without substance--except for a vague notion of divine nicety.
Far from being passive and meek, Jesus in real life was both controversial and dogmatic. Indeed, as British theologian John R. W. Stott explains in Christ the Controversialist (1970), true Christianity is inevitably and "essentially dogmatic." Why? "It purports to be a revealed faith," Stott writes. "If the Christian religion were just a collection of the philosophical and ethical ideas of men (like Hinduism), dogmatism would be entirely out of place. But if God has spoken (as Christians claim), both in olden days through the prophets and in these last days through His Son, why should it be thought 'dogmatic' to believe His Word ourselves and to urge other people to believe it too?"
Jesus was not "broad-minded" in the popular sense of the word. He was not prepared to accept as valid all views on every subject. Jesus was not afraid to dissent from official doctrines. Even Christ's disciples referred to him as a "hard" or difficult man. In other words, he wasn't in tune with his feminine side.
Christ knew how to be wrong (or not "politically correct") and to expose what he saw as error. He called his Jewish counterparts "blind guides," "wolves in sheep's clothing," "whitewashed tombs" and even "a brood of vipers."
Jesus was aggressive. And he was literally on the offensive, with a message that offended those around him to the point that he was killed for it. One illustration of this fact is Christ's action in the temple at Jerusalem. As the book of Matthew reveals:
Jesus...drove out all those who were buying and selling [in the temple]. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"
In addition, Jesus would not permit anyone to carry goods through the temple, and he even blocked the doorways.
Christ also had a plan to take his message to the world and commanded his disciples to do likewise. As found in Matthew:
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
The early Christians took this mandate with the utmost seriousness. "The apostles also were controversialists," notes Stott, "as is plain from the New Testament Epistles, and they appealed to their readers 'to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.' Like their Lord and master they found it necessary to warn the churches of false teachers and urge them to stand firm in the truth."
There are many examples of confrontation and controversy caused by Christ's followers in the New Testament. For example, the apostle Paul preached in a Jewish synagogue in Thessalonica, with the result that some came to believe what he was saying. However, those who opposed Paul formed a mob and incited a riot. In this case, mere preaching caused the confrontation. And lest we forget, many of Paul's letters in the New Testament were written from jail cells.
Thus, the apostles would hardly have been described as men who "turned the world upside down," as the book of Acts puts it, if they had casually explained their concept of the truth or allowed other points of view to be taken on an equal basis. As anyone knows who takes a stand on an issue, truth and confrontation often go hand in hand.
And that's where Mel Gibson finds himself with his film portrayal of Christ. However, Gibson's film is not the first to stir such a controversy. Martin Scorsese's 1988 The Last Temptation of Christ, a poignant statement of religious and artistic vision, fanned the flames of wrath of the Christian Right. They publicly protested the film and fought it tooth and nail--indeed, before most even saw the movie--which killed any possible box office success for the film.
Since the earliest days of Hollywood, directors have been drawn into the compelling story of Christ's troublesome existence. Most have presented visual representations of Jesus as pious, sugary and soft. He has often been surrounded by an altogether artificial aura--not as the Jew he was but as a Caucasian with long auburn hair. And any attempt by filmmakers to emphasize the true humanity of Jesus--which most of the Gospels in fact do--or the stringent urgency of his message has met with protest.
We live in curious times. On the one hand, we are increasingly seeking something outside ourselves, such as God, to give order and a sense of meaning to our lives in our chaotic world. On the other hand, when we are given a realistic glimpse of what God may really be like, we recoil if it doesn't fit our preconceived notions. In the process, our modern God has become one without substance--except for a vague notion of divine nicety.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
