Violence in Passion shows what Jesus paid for our sin
The dictionary defines “gratuitous” as unjustified, unwarranted.
Gratuitous violence is what Hollywood so often funds and distributes in movies that could have done without it.
The violence in The Passion of the Christ, a movie Hollywood refused to fund or support in any way, is anything but gratuitous. It is extreme but not gratuitous. It is essential to a more complete telling of the story.
As terrible and ugly as it is, that is how terrible and ugly our sin is in the eyes of God. We minimize, justify, excuse and rationalize our sin. But God sees it for what it really is.
So the violence of Jesus’ suffering and death, reflected in this movie like none before it, is what it took to pay for our sins. Let the violence in the movie turn our attention to the ugliness of our own gratuitous sin.
Then, when Good Friday and Easter come, we’ll be ready.
J. David Trawick
San Antonio

Motion picture presents midrash of Gibson’s gospel
After reading Julie Wylie’s article (“United Methodists describe Gibson movie as powerful,” March 5), I jotted down some personal reactions.
I saw The Passion of the Christ, first of all, as pure midrash, a gospel according to Mel Gibson, using various parts of the canonical gospels, as well as his own embellishments, such as how Judas died and how a crow pecked at the eyes of the unrepentant sinner.
Rather than the film showing me “how much Jesus loves me and what he did for me,” I see it rather as what happened to Jesus as a result of his courage and conviction when he took on the Roman imperial system and challenged Jewish orthodoxy.
I can’t agree with Carol Loeb that all Christians should see it. Not all people, in my view, are helped by viewing the gore and savagery depicted here, and I am unable to see how it could help all Christians to “deepen their search.”
I found certain parts of the movie inspiring, however, such as Mary’s intense anguish over the pain of her son, the last supper and the washing of the disciples’ feet.
Dan Adams
San Antonio

Maybe UMC should stress uncertainty, not ‘truth’
I am responding to the “My view” articles by Dan Adams (“We should be able to discuss differences like brothers,” Feb. 20) and J. David Trawick (“Can we agree on boundaries of UM dialogue?” Feb. 20).
Both men seem concerned about why the church is losing membership and what church members should believe.
Mr. Adams says he thinks there is a legitimate, alternative way of looking at things. He is correct.
Mr. Trawick seems to be seeking boundaries to our thinking and possibly is not so correct.
Reinhold Niebuhr in The Nature and Destiny of Man says, “… it is not possible to establish the claim that we have the truth.”
In Dynamics of Faith, Paul Tillich says, “… Biblical research in Protestantism has shown … the impossibility of considering the Bible as containing the infallible truth of faith.”
Bishop John Shelby Spong in Why Christianity Must Change or Die asserts, “… the gospels … are not accurate, and they are not to be confused with reality.” In addition, he says, “The gospels are not inerrant works, divinely authored.”
All we have is faith in God. Miguel de Unamuno says in Tragic Sense of Life, “The most robust faith … is based on uncertainty.”
Maybe The United Methodist Church would do better to emphasize this basic uncertainty of life rather than creating the impression that the church knows when it does not know. That would be honesty people could respect.
James J. Billings
Las Cruces, N.M.