|
Larry W. Poland writes this:
For twenty-three years I've consulted with decision makers in film and
television in Hollywood and New York media. As an evangelical
Christian doing this, I understand prejudice. I live and work in a
world in which “Jesus Christ”—my God and personal deliverer—is a
common expletive. I know media professionals who have been publicly
berated, denied job promotions, and even fired because they were born
again Christians.
This contempt for those labeled “fundamentalists,” “born-againers,” or
the “religious right” is openly accepted, and it commonly spills onto
me personally. After a television executive and I had a delightful
lunch together, he learned of my background and told a mutual friend,
“I wouldn’t have met with him, if I’d known he was an evangelical
Christian.” However irrational or prejudiced his perspective may have
been, it was real to him.
At
the same time that I have been representing a despised segment of
American society in the politically correct, devoutly secular, or raw
pagan milieu of Hollywood, I have gotten inside the minds and hearts
of another segment of society which has struggled with this same
irrationality and prejudice . . . much more than I have. Of course, I
refer to the Jewish community. For two decades, I have had one foot in
each of two communities which have had, at best, peaceful coexistence
and, at worst, “warfare” with each other over a host of real and
imagined issues.
Even as I’ve heard evangelicals described by the head of a leading
media trade publication as “a bunch of no-nothing yahoos in the Bible
belt,” I’ve heard Jews described as ”Christ killers.” All of this has
taken place in the media industry—in an arena of professed
“tolerance,” “diversity,” and broad acceptance of human differences.
As a result of this experience, I think I have a unique perspective on
an issue which has been resurrected by the release of a film about
Jesus.
When Hollywood icon Mel Gibson announced the release of his film on
the suffering of Jesus, a firestorm of protest erupted. The most vocal
expressions came from segments of the Jewish community.
Representatives of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Jewish
Anti-Defamation League expressed concern that the release of the film
would stir anti-Jewish sentiment and even violence against Jewish
people. Some in media have asked, “How could Mel Gibson do this to
us?”
Many from the Christian community—including my evangelical brothers
and sisters— have expressed everything from bewilderment to outrage at
the Jewish protest. To them, recounting the story of their lord’s
betrayal, accusation, trial, and crucifixion has nothing at all to do
with Jews or any kind of anti-Jewish agenda. They are typically
incredulous—and offended—that anyone would impugn their motives by
suggesting such a thing.
The purpose of this booklet is to help the reader understand both the
evangelical Christian and Jewish perspectives, not just of Mel
Gibson’s film, but of the broader issue of Jesus and the telling of
his story. It is my passionate hope that the resulting dialogue will
help build a bridge of trust and understanding between the Jewish and
evangelical Christian communities. I’ll even offer some steps to
“build the abutments” for this bridge.
What is the
“passion” of Jesus?
HISTORICALLY, THE SUFFERING OF JESUS which resulted in his death has
been known by Christians as his “passion.” This includes his betrayal
by Judas, his accusation by the Jewish religious authorities, his
trial before both Jewish and Roman courts, his beatings, his
humiliation, his being required to carry his own cross to the place of
crucifixion and the crucifixion itself.
Why would anyone
think the portrayal of Jesus’ suffering might be anti-Jewish?
ONE
OF THE EYEWITNESSES TO THE SUFFERING of Jesus was a follower of his
named John who wrote one of the four historic accounts, called
“gospels.” When John describes the actions of the Jewish religious
leaders who, according to the witnesses, conspired to have Jesus
condemned, he refers to them as “The Jews.” In a number of places in
his writings, he includes references such as “The Jews persecuted him
. . .” or “The Jews tried all the harder to kill him . . . .” When
read out of the context of the story, these references can sound as if
Jewish people—as an ethnic group—were responsible for killing Jesus.
This language,
not used by the other three “gospel” writers, can easily be read by
non-Christians as expressing an anti-Jewish sentiment, because “that’s
what it says.” However, John himself was Jewish, and he obviously knew
that this persecution of Jesus was not being directed by Jewish people
against non-Jewish people or Christians, but by Jewish people against
one of his, and their, own kin.
Furthermore,
there have been some calling themselves Christians who have actually
viewed Jews generically as “Christ-killers.” Growing up in a small,
WASP community in which the family of the scrap yard owner was the
only Jewish family in town, I never knew these bigots even existed.
But, a couple of years ago, I asked the Jewish members of a group of
trusted media executives in the board room of CBS Television City if
any of them had ever been called a “Christ-killer.” Both said, “Yes”!
I was stunned to learn this. One said, “I remember it like it was
yesterday. I was going to school when I was ten years old, and some
kids yelled ‘Christ-killer’ at me. I didn’t know what they were
talking about. I knew I hadn’t killed anybody.”
If Jewish
people don’t read the Gospel of John in context or have had someone
call them a Christ-killer, it’s easier to see why the dramatic telling
of the story of Jesus’ killing would not be seen as an act of
friendship.
Why would Jewish
people be concerned about Christians using the portrayal of the
suffering of Jesus to stir anti-Jewish sentiment?
THERE IS ONE COMPELLING REASON WHY Jewish people would think this.
There are a number of historical instances in which this is exactly
what has happened!
In
Europe, the best-known theatrical presentation of the passion of Jesus
is the one performed at Oberammergau, Germany. Begun in 1634 and
continuing to this day, this spectacular “passion play” uses 1,700
players to tell the story. It is performed at the start of each decade
to fulfill a vow made to God by the citizens of Oberammergau when
bubonic plague claimed 15,000 of its residents. The vow was an act of
devotion to Jesus Christ in hopes God would never again allow a deadly
plague to strike their community.
When Adolf Hitler came to power and sought to fuel the fires of hatred
for Jewish people, he used this Oberammergau “passion play” drama to
stir non-Jews with the message, “See, it was the Jews who killed your
savior!” While this is, at best, a half truth, Hitler never let the
truth stand in the way of his propaganda machine and its violent
contempt for everyone and everything Jewish.
Why are Jewish people so sensitive about anything that hints of
anti-Semitism?
JEWISH PEOPLE ARE IN A CLASS by themselves as objects of hatred and
violence from other nations. Over the centuries, no other ethnic group
on the planet has been more consistently and viciously persecuted.
From the insidious plot to annihilate the Jewish people in the reign
of Persian King Xerxes, circa 460 B. C. E. (recorded in the Hebrew
Scriptures’ Book of Esther) to the merciless propaganda
campaigns and horrific atrocities against Jewish people in
mid-twentieth-century Europe, Jewish people have been singled out for
destruction. Tensions in the Middle East today also make this point.
Multitudes in a major world religion and scores of nations openly call
for the annihilation of the Jewish people and of Israel . . . without
apology.
This persecution has produced a greater sensitivity to religious and
racial bigotry among Jewish people. One needs only to consider Tevye’s
lament to God in the musical Fiddler on the Roof: “I know that we are
the chosen people, but couldn’t you have chosen somebody else?” to
gain a better understanding of the impact of this history of hatred on
the Jewish psyche.
An
American proverb declares, “A scalded cat runs from cold water.” There
is no doubt that the Jewish people have been repeatedly “scalded”
throughout history. Even today, one undeniable fear of many Jewish
people is that somehow, somewhere, someone will kill them just for
being Jewish.
Evangelical Christians should be able to identify deeply with their
Jewish friends in this fear. In the last century, “born again”
Christians have been slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands by
Communists in settings as diverse as the salt mines of Siberia under
Stalin and the caves of China by Chairman Mao. As I write this,
thousands are still being persecuted, imprisoned, raped and
slaughtered in fundamentalist Muslim nations just for being Christian.
The American President, known for his Christian faith, is damned as a
hated “crusader” for Christianity.
Whether Jewish, Christian, Armenian, or Kurdish, there’s nothing like
a history of continual hatred and repeated persecution to stir
sensitivity to any hint of more of it.
Who, in fact, did
kill Jesus?
EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS FROM THE BIBLE and trustworthy manuscripts from
non-biblical sources of the first century agree: the condemnation,
trial, and murder of Jesus had complicity from a number of sources.
One of Jesus’ closest associates, a greedy follower named Judas
Iscariot, himself a Jew, betrayed Jesus by disclosing his whereabouts
and identity to Jerusalem’s ruling Jewish rabbis for thirty pieces of
silver. These leaders held great wealth and political and religious
power.
The Jewish religious leaders apparently had a mix of motivations for
wanting to remove Jesus from the public arena. On one hand, they were
legitimately offended that Jesus claimed to be God. This claim
constituted the most egregious form of blasphemy in the Jewish faith
and carried the death penalty under their code of divine law. There is
also evidence that the rapidly growing—yet spontaneous—movement of
Jesus’ followers was viewed as a threat. It threatened both the
tenuous political authority of the Jewish religious establishment and
the dominance of the Roman conquerors of Israel.
Lacking the political or judicial authority to execute Jesus, these
religious leaders pursued their plan with the Roman regional governor,
Pontius Pilate. Pilate, according to historical records, was caught in
a delicate position between Rome and the Jewish people he was ordered
to keep in subjection. His tenuous personal situation was evidently a
key part of his motivation for giving consent to the Roman military to
carry out the torture, humiliation and crucifixion of Jesus.
So, the passion of Christ can be laid at the feet of a betraying
friend, a cadre of self-protective Jewish leaders, a weak or
conflicted Roman official, and a violence-prone Roman military.
In
the screening of Mel Gibson’s film I attended, one guest questioned
the wisdom of portraying the Jewish religious leaders as so evil.
Another guest said, “Well, I’m Italian, and, frankly, the Romans
didn’t come off looking too great either!”
One salient point remains to be made on this issue. In a very real
sense, neither the Jews, Romans, nor others can bear the full
responsibility for Jesus’ death. In his own testimony, Jesus declared
that he came to earth to die and was giving his life into the hands of
others to carry out the plan. “No one takes my life from me,” Jesus
declared, “I lay it down myself.” This explains the willing submission
he apparently showed in the face of the plots, humiliation, torture
and crucifixion he suffered.
Was the suffering
of Jesus the result of “anti-Christian” acts?
AT
THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, JESUS had been teaching publicly for only about
three and a half years. Typically, this would be too short a time to
create any kind of significant political or religious movement.
However, because of the supernatural signs and miracles attributed to
him, his following gained spectacularly rapid momentum. Jesus
frequently had spontaneous gatherings of more than 20,000 people, and
tens of thousands pursued him seeking miracles of healing, exorcism,
and provision.
The profile of Jesus’ audience was not, technically, “Christian.” Even
though Christians mark the origin of the Christian “Church” at
Pentecost fifty days after the crucifixion, and all of the New
Testament was written within four decades, there was no organized
Christian religion or ecclesiastical structure until many years after
Jesus’ death. In fact, his followers were overwhelmingly Jewish.
Jesus directed his message almost exclusively to Jewish people. He did
so, because he had pure Jewish lineage on both sides of his family,
and his parents were devout adherents to the Jewish faith. Also, he
viewed his divine mission as addressing the “house of Israel” and
“fulfilling the Law of Moses.” He commonly taught in Jewish
synagogues, a fact which—given the radically different perspectives he
expressed in his teachings—actually worked against him.
Essentially, the passion of Jesus portrays one segment of the Jewish
community persecuting another segment—and its popular and charismatic
leader—with the complicity of the Roman political and military
authorities.
Is not placing
blame on Jewish religious leaders for Jesus’ death the same as blaming
the Jewish people as a whole?
THE
SIMPLE ANSWER IS “It shouldn’t be the same.” Yet, the history of what
might be called “Christian anti-semitism” hinges on this point.
Outrageous as it is, the blame for what was done by a few
first-century Jewish leaders has been unfairly projected onto living
Jews—those dubbed “Christ-killers” by the misguided. In actuality, the
blame doesn’t fit even first-century Jews . . . as a group.
Let’s assume that those first-century religious leaders were more than
just misguided individuals protecting their authority and deeply held
beliefs. Suppose they were downright corrupt—as putting a price on
Jesus’ head with Judas would indicate. Even so, the corruption of a
few doesn’t justify the indictment of an entire ethnic group at the
time of the crimes—much less, centuries later.
Corruption sometimes occurs among religious leaders, even in religions
with the highest moral and ethical ideals. Roman Catholic Church
history is sprinkled with immoral popes, violent anti-Jewish crusades,
financially corrupt church officials, and, currently, pedophile
priests.
Christian Protestant church history also has more than its share of
moral scandals. Corrupt behavior includes everything from Lutheran
complicity with the Nazis to the sex and money scandals of American
televangelists.
Clearly, it is inexcusable to project blame for the conduct of a few
onto their entire religion or ethnic group. But, Jewish and Christian
people would have to agree that inexcusable acts are not without
precedent by the “jerk factor” in both communities.
How could some
Jewish people and some Christians differ so widely in the message they
see in Mel Gibson’s film?
SOME
OF THE REVIEWS OF THOSE WHO have seen Mel Gibson’s movie are widely
disparate in their perceptions of the messages it conveys. Keith A.
Fournier, a prominent Catholic constitutional lawyer, declared, ”There
is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this
powerful film.” Other viewers passionately disagree.
I
am very familiar with Mel Gibson’s movie. I was one of a select few
who read the script before the movie was produced and was in a
small-group screening with Mel Gibson as early as July 10, 2003.
Naturally, I took all of my evangelical Christian “filters,” my years
of study of the history of Jesus Christ, and my seminary training into
the screening with me. I also took into the screening a world view
that’s a mix of passionate love for everything Jewish and an absolute
conviction that Jesus’ death had absolutely nothing to do with Jewish
people, then or now. No surprise, then, that I saw a film free from
anything “anti-Semitic.”
Where there is disparity in assessing the film’s message, it seems to
run along Jewish/Christian lines. Dennis Prager, Jewish intellectual,
author and talk show host, suggests that the two groups “see two
different films.” He says, “For two hours, Christians watch their
Savior tortured and killed. For the same two hours, Jewish people
watch Jewish people arrange the killing and torture of the Christians’
savior.” Prager said a Jewish friend who viewed the movie said that
during it he “wanted to take a gun and shoot those who had brought
such pain to Jesus.”
I
can understand this. The Jewish religious leaders were—in historical
fact and in the film—clearly the “heavies.” During the film, I burned
in anger at those who pursued the death of my lord, savior and
intimate friend. But, I made no transference from the ill-motivated
Jewish leaders to “Jews” or to “Jewish people” in general, for the
simple reason that the whole story was Jewish.
Sitting next to me in the screening was a Jewish man who heads a film
studio and who has a number of joint ventures with Mel Gibson. I asked
him what he thought of the film. It was the second time he’d viewed
it. Among other things, he said, “It’s very Jewish.” We talked about
the lines delivered in the Aramaic language and how many similar words
and phrases there were to Hebrew. Even I recognized them from my
now-rusty seminary Hebrew language study.
The film is very Jewish, and the Jewish leaders are—to put it
kindly—not the kind of people you’d like to face . . . whatever their
ethnicity. In the film, you’re motivated to despise or even to hate
them, and they did play a significant role in the drama leading to
Jesus’ death.
Herein lies a legitimate Jewish concern: that some hate-filled,
disturbed or bigoted non-Jews might be motivated to do the same—to
take revenge on those who “killed the Christians’ savior.” Fear
remains that some maniac—in the name of Christ or Christians—might
“want to take a gun and shoot those who brought such pain to Jesus.”
It
is precisely this kind of unjustified retribution—even from nominal
Christians—which stirs sensitivity in the Jewish community when
powerful portrayals of the passion of Jesus appear. The scars are
still raw from Oberammergau and from the Holocaust—from people who did
their evil under the symbols of the swastika and the cross.
Some Jewish
critics charge Mel Gibson’s film with perpetrating a view of God that
is not in keeping with Jewish–or Christian–understanding. Why?
THIS
CHARGE WAS MADE BY ONE prominent Jewish leader who rejects the notion
that God would exact a blood price from His own son to atone for the
wrongdoing of the world. He suggests that to paint a portrait of a God
like this denies God’s true, loving and just character.
Christians do believe that Jesus willingly submitted to a torturous
death—“shed his own blood”—as an innocent, divine man. He declared
that he did so in order to pay for the sins of all those who would
accept his payment on their behalf.
For first-century Jewish followers of Jesus, blood atonement was not a
new concept. It was part and parcel of the Mosaic Covenant and was
practiced daily at the temple in Jerusalem. From Jewish beginnings,
the sacrificial shedding of the blood of an animal with no defects—a
bull or goat for sin offerings—was an essential part of ceremonial
atonement. A goat was slaughtered for Yom Kippur ceremonies.
The blood of an unblemished lamb was used on the door posts of the
first Passover in Egypt and every following Passover. Thus, when
Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptizer, introduced Jesus to the public, he
proclaimed, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the
world.” In doing this, John was announcing Jesus as the Messiah of
Israel who would remove sin once and for all by spilling his own
blood.
The reasoning set forth by Jesus’ followers for his blood sacrifice
was that the same God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the
prophets who required the blood of animals for sin atonement
throughout Jewish history was now requiring the blood of His innocent
son—the “unblemished lamb”—for one final and all-encompassing covering
for the sins of the world. This atonement, they assert, requires only
belief and acceptance of his atoning work.
As
I said earlier, early Jewish disciples of Jesus believed that he was
divine, so they found it obvious that ultimately he, and he alone,
could surrender his life. Biblical Christians believe that no mortal
ruler or band of religious zealots could take it from him—not from
God.
Since this is the clear teaching of Jesus and of the Christian New
Testament as well, it relegates the ultimate responsibility of those
human instruments of Jesus’ death to a somewhat secondary one.
While the full guilt of their actions rests on them, Jesus’ killers
were instruments in the Jewish Messiah’s accomplishment of a divine
mission—one foretold hundreds of years earlier by the Jewish prophet
Isaiah in the 53rd chapter of his prophecies. Thus, for Christians,
this act of surrender to death became unique in human history. It
became an expression—not of the capriciousness of a vindictive God—but
an expression of the voluntary, loving sacrifice of this
God-become-man for the entire human race—Jewish and non-Jewish alike.
What’s the bottom
line?
While traditional Jewish people and two millennia of Christian
believers differ significantly on their views of the role and “office”
of Jesus, their differences have been grossly exaggerated, and their
respective religious leaders have often deepened the divide between
them. On one hand, irresponsible and corrupt Christian leaders have
perpetrated contempt for and even persecution of Jewish descendants of
the heroes and heroines of their own faith!
On
the other hand, irresponsible and corrupt Jewish religious and
political leaders have perpetrated contempt for, prejudice against,
and even persecution of, conservative Christians or Christian
evangelicals—believers in the Jews’ very own God, Scriptures, and
faith heroes and heroines!
Interestingly, it appears that the more closely Jewish and Christian
people pursue a deep, personal relationship with their common God, His
moral law, and His sacred Scriptures, the more rapport and fellowship
they seem to enjoy with each other. It seems that secularism is the
poison in the well of both groups.
Jewish leaders will acknowledge that among the “best friends” of
Israel are evangelical Christians. Some have even defended
evangelicals as protectors of their interests in modern America.
Christians will note that their “most loyal allies” in the pursuit of
moral righteousness in government, education, and media are often
Jewish people of faith. True Christians also openly and uniformly
condemn acts of hatred or violence against Jewish people or Jewish
religious interests.
What are the
“action points” for Jewish people in this controversy?
I
would plead with those in the Jewish community to . . .
- “Cut
Christians some slack” in the telling of the stories of their faith,
and choose to believe that their motives are not anti-Semitic or
“anti-anything.”
- End the
stereotyping of Christians as being either “Catholics, Nazis, or
fundraisers,” as one Jewish friend described his perceptions before
meeting some loving evangelicals.
- Don’t assume
that evangelical Christians care about you only as potential
proselytes—as “prospects for their religious, multilevel downline.”
Most dearly love Jews, Jewish traditions, the Jewish faith, and the
Jewish God.
- Don’t get up
tight when Christians share their faith or their Jesus with you in
films or in speech. In a free market of ideas, we learn from each
other by listening to each other. Respect them as enthusiastic
salesmen, not dangerous potential “captors.”
- Get to know
a passionate evangelical Christian intimately, and get past their
unwitting insensitivity to things Jewish until you can hear their
hearts.
- Go see Mel
Gibson’s film, and discuss it—not argue over it—with a Christian
friend or a Jewish believer in “Yeshua” as “Messiah.” Listen and
learn from the dialogue.
What are the
“action points” for evangelical Christian people in this controversy?
I
would plead with those in the Christian community to . . .
- Get past
your denial about the subtle anti-Jewish attitudes, expressions, and
stereotypes you hold. They are sin; ask God to forgive them.
- Get to know
Jewish people, Jewish traditions, and Jewish history. Doing so will
help you understand—and love—Jewish people.
- Graciously
pursue random acts of loving-kindness toward Jewish people, even if
rebuffed. Trust for Christians doesn’t come easily for them . . .
for good reasons.
- Abandon
trying to “convert” Jewish people to “Christianity.” They will
always be Jewish—enviably so—even if they come to believe “Yeshua”
is the “Messiah.”
- Kill any
semblance of anti-Jewish thought or action, remembering that the
savior you say you love and serve and the faith you hold are really
Jewish.
- Go see Mel
Gibson’s film and discuss it—not argue over it—with a Jewish friend.
Listen and learn from the dialogue.
A Dream Scenario
I
DREAM OF A TIME WHEN JEWISH PEOPLE of faith and authentic Christians
will set aside traditions of unthinking or ill-motivated suspicion and
hostility toward each other and explore what they have in common. I
trust that the controversy over Mel Gibson’s film will morph into a
gracious dialogue and, in so doing, will put the keystone in a bridge
between Christian and Jewish people that no one can destroy. In Dennis
Prager’s words, “The last thing Jews need is to create tension with
their best friends. And the last thing Christians need is a renewal of
Christian hatred toward Jesus’ people.”
Such a bond of developing trust and friendship would certainly permit
the telling of uniquely Jewish or uniquely Christian stories in films,
books, or other forms of media without stirring suspicions of
hostility.
~~~~~~~
To purchase copies of the
19-page booklet containing the text above, contact MasterMedia
International,
order online,
phone: 909-335-7353 (MasterMedia New York, 212-696-9351), email
info@mastermediaintl.org or write to:
330 North Sixth Street,
Suite 110
Redlands, California 92374
Copyright ©MasterMedia
International. Used
by permission.
copyright © 1995-2006
Leadership U. All rights reserved.
This article is part of the
Telling
the Truth Project.
|
Dr
Gideon Polya, MWC News Chief political
editor, published some 130 works in a 4 decade
scientific career, most recently a huge
pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of
Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor &
Francis, New York & London, 2003), and is currently
writing a book on global mortality --- 
