Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Is Mel Gibson a coward?

The question is a bit unfair, I grant, but I bring it up because Gibson seems perfectly at home with explicit violence in his films but has problems with sex, explicit or otherwise.
No where is this more obvious than in his movie, "The Passion of Christ."
Gibson loads up on the blood and gore of ancient crucifixions but avoids the inconvenient truth of those condemned to being crucified had insult added to injury by being crucified totally nude.
While many would find the idea of a nude Jesus being crucified offensive, shouldn't it give us pause to stop and think where our priorities are? Shouldn't we find the idea of Jesus being crucified the true cause for offense, rather than going into a twitter over him being nude?
And if you think about it, doesn't it make theological sense for Jesus being crucified totally nude?The reason why I say this is because Jesus is often mentioned in theological writings as the new Adam.
Before Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he and Eve lived nude. The geniuses they were, caused them to run and find some fig leaves to hide their shame of being human. On the other hand, Jesus was not ashamed of being human. Isn't it fitting that he would die as naked as the day he was born?

No comments:

Post a Comment