The Passion of the Christ is a very frightening movie. Like many local Christians, I watched it recently and then attended a discussion group that was sponsored by my home congregation. We considered the film artistically, theologically, historically and socially, but two categories we missed were psychologically and propagandistically. The film grabs the viewer at a visceral level, in a way that I believe is fundamentally unhealthy.

Many have commented on the violence -- verging on cruelty -- of the film. Indeed, the flesh being ripped apart by hooks, exposing bone and spraying gallons of blood has more in common with the Hellraiser horror series (which, incidentally, also exploits Christian iconography), than any film I've ever seen about Jesus. However, what disturbed me more than the overt violence was the veiled vindictiveness: the look of hatred on Jesus' face as he crushes the head of a serpent; the boiling of Judas' lips (presumably for betraying Christ with a kiss); the crow pecking out the eyes of the thief on the cross for speaking ill of the Christ. The intense parade of beatings and scorn rained sadistically down on an innocent man seems to beg for retribution, Rambo-style. And for conservative Christian viewers, there is indeed an implied sequel: when the "Son of Man" comes again to return destruction to those who refuse to believe in him, foreshadowed in the movie by the violent destruction of the Jewish Holy of Holies and the cries of anguish and sorrow of the Jews upon whom this divine retribution is visited.

The debate about anti-Semitism in the film has always seemed perversely limited, omitting historical context and insisting on judging the film "on its own merits." First, let's remember that this film is essentially a passion play projected onto the big screen. Most American Christians are blithely ignorant of the history of passion plays which, in medieval Europe, reenacted the passion of the Christ precisely following the biblical narrative, as a prelude to lynching local Jews. Passion plays have been forgotten, in much the way that many anti-Semites today (like Mel's dad and possibly Mel) would like to forget the Holocaust. In a film which essentially, with no context, portrays the brutal death of a man, the context not provided by the film is everything, and that is precisely what many flocking to watch this film seem unwilling to unpack. To refuse to unpack this context is like evaluating the cinematic merits of Birth of a Nation without considering its relationship to the rise in popularity of the Ku Klux Klan.

It is precisely Gibson's failure to provide context that has caused many devout Christians to object to the film. Gibson has focussed the lens of the camera too intently on the splattering of Jesus’ blood in the style of Lethal Weapon and Braveheart, without providing enough of substance about the life and resurrection that gave Jesus’ death meaning, as if the violence is itself the message. The problem, of course, is that once we get into the actual meaning of Jesus' death and life, we find ourselves as Christians disagreeing. That is because things in real life are not so clear cut, so absolutely black and white as what the director of a movie would have us believe.

What concerns me most is what is going on psychologically as we watch the endless rounds of beatings, the flagellations, the exsanguination. I have talked to so many who came away from the film feeling not gratitude, but anger. This seems to be the age of rage, and in particular, conservative Christian rage. A legitimate question is, will The Passion become the Christian Right's Birth of a Nation, in which their enemy du jour can be substituted for the Jews of the movie? And they have plenty of enemies to substitute, be it gays and lesbians demanding equal rights; pro-choice advocates; liberals who are supposedly contributing to the moral decadence of the nation; or unbelievers of many stripes, including good, old-fashioned Jews. The implicit message behind much right-wing evangelism is "convert or suffer for eternity." You'll find the message in any bus stop brochure. Right-wingers have organized to use this film for "evangelism" with incredible eagerness, and having seen the film now, I cannot help but wonder if it is not in part because all the glorious blood-letting in the film reinforces the "convert or suffer" message. Convert or suffer as the Christ did. His blood will be on you and your children. (Gibson took the subtitles out, but left the footage, and the hateful words, in.)

Let's not be fooled by the hype. Despite what Mel would have you believe, this Hollywood-inspired orgy of blood is not a fifth gospel. Everything a Christian needs to know on the score of what Jesus suffered is contained in a few brief paragraphs in the actual four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, in case we've forgotten), and has the benefit of being provided in context with a lot of other things Christians need to know about love, justice, compassion, and commitment. But as Christians we need to struggle and come to terms with the very important contextual and historical issue of what it is about the gospel accounts of the passion that inspired previous generations of our co-religionists to hate, lynch, and kill Jews. Somehow, that doesn't seem consistent with what Jesus taught.