DAVID YOUNT Will 'Passion' shock or awe audiences?

In the wake of World War I, the Times of London asked pundits to answer the question, "What's wrong with the world?" G.K. Chesterton, a recent convert to Christianity, offered the most succinct answer: "Me! I'm what's wrong with the world."
It was a peculiarly Christian response. Those who believe in Jesus of Nazareth blame sin for the world's distress -- not just somebody else's, but their own as well. Moreover, Christians in every age have taken responsibility for the death of Jesus, believing he suffered that they might die to sin and be redeemed for eternal life.
"The Passion of the Christ," Mel Gibson's cinematic re-enactment of Jesus' final 12 hours, resists this responsibility, blaming other villains for Christ's suffering. Truth be told, Gibson's account is no more anti-Semitic than "Schindler's List" was anti-Gentile. Jesus, a Jew, was a real threat to leaders of his day. His own apostle handed him over to the authorities, and Jesus' followers abandoned him. The Romans crucified him. That is history.
Christopher Hitchens, writing in Vanity Fair, argues that God himself is to blame for Jesus' suffering and death. Scripture prophesied that Jesus would die. Because it was inevitable, Hitchens says, it was no human fault. To be sure, Jesus predicted his tragic end and elected not to resist arrest. He went to his death like a sacrificial lamb to the slaughter, but not before pleading unsuccessfully with his father that he be spared.
And that is the point. After Eden, God could have written off humanity as a bad mistake. Instead, he so loved the world that he sent his son to suffer and die that we might live. Christians believe Jesus' story did not end on the cross, but that he conquered death not only for himself but for all who acknowledge and abandon their sins.
With what outcome?
Gibson acknowledges that his aim in dramatizing Jesus' agony is to shock. He has succeeded. The question remains whether it will attract people to Christ or alienate them -- whether audiences will find hope or horror in the account.
One thing is for certain: The film is not entertainment. We all know in advance how it will end. There is no suspense, no romance, no humor -- just agony and cruelty. Moreover, Gibson gives us subtitles instead of language we can understand, and no actors with whom we are familiar.
"The Passion" is preaching to the choir. I cannot imagine a Jewish or Muslim audience warming to the film. So what is the point of sensationalizing suffering? We've already read the book -- in fact, all four of them: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- and know the story. We don't need pictures.
Roman Catholic churches display the cross with the image of the suffering Christ still nailed to it. Gibson, a retro-Catholic, seems stuck on Good Friday's agony rather than Easter's glory.
XDavid Yount's new books are "Faith Under Fire" (SterlingHouse) and "The Future of Christian Faith in America" (Augsburg).