By David Behling, Making a difference

Every so often things happen as a weird coincidence; impossible to believe if you read it in a story (or see it in a movie), but true nonetheless.

This time it’s the &uot;buzz&uot; about two &uot;must see&uot; movies: The Passion of the Christ and Osama.

The first is better known (or at least more controversial), and portrays the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus. It opens tomorrow, in theaters all over the United States.

It’s ironic that a film about Jesus’ crucifixion would open against Ash Wednesday worship services; however, in a country where professional sports teams play each other on Christmas Eve, that sort of competition for our attention isn’t so unusual.

The other film is less well known. It’s being released in fewer theaters, mostly in big cities. Osama is a film that tells the story about a family of women &045;

widows and their daughters &045;

in an Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. It’s the first film made by an Afghan filmmaker in that country since the Taliban were overthrown.

Two very different films, and yet they both are considered &uot;must see&uot; movies by the same crowd in Washington, D.C.: Christians who support Pres. Bush’s war in Iraq.

I find that very interesting. One is being promoted as a &uot;true picture&uot; of Jesus’ final hours. The other is held up as proof that Bush’s

wars have been worth the costs and consequences.

The thing is, as a stubborn skeptic, I immediately become suspicious when people talk about a film as a &uot;must see&uot; event. Why must I see it? What is the purpose of the promotional pressure put on me or anyone else to see it?

In the case of Osama, I don’t think the film’s plot provides a vindication or justification for any American officials or policies. We looked the other way while our Saudi Arabian &uot;allies&uot; exported a religion of intolerance throughout the region. For many years we ignored the Taliban’s suppression of women’s rights: the closure of schools, the banning of work, the violence. We tolerated &045;

up until recently &045;

many of the same policies among the warlords we saw as our allies against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The conditions portrayed in this film existed for a long time without any attempts to change them &045;

until we were attacked by terrorists ourselves.

It’s a good thing that the Taliban and Saddam Hussein are no longer in power, but using this film as a &uot;must see&uot; vindication for our use of military force requires ignoring too much hypocrisy.

The Passion, on the other hand, isn’t used to justify anything in the political arena. We’re encouraged to see it because it is more than just a movie; it’s a &uot;real&uot; picture of the suffering of Jesus.

The director/producer, Mel Gibson, says he was inspired by God to make this film; making it was an act of worship for him.

More than 20 years ago I remember watching the movie Jesus after receiving similar &uot;recommendations.&uot; That was a good movie, but just a movie &045;

nothing more.

This new movie is one man’s interpretation of what we know about events that took place nearly two thousand years ago. It’s not a Gospel itself; it’s based on a Gospel. Whether the film’s creator and promoters understand that isn’t clear to me. So what happens if, when I do go see the film, I don’t recognize the Jesus up on the screen?

It wouldn’t be the first time I didn’t recognize a character named Jesus as the savior I worship. With so much energy being put into promoting this film in our churches and Bible study groups, if I can’t reconcile the Jesus created by acting, makeup, and a script with the Christ of the church, what then? Are those who wrote letters and used their voices to promote the film better Christians than me?

The Passion may very well be a fine movie; I’ll wait to see it before I pass judgement.

Even if it is a really good story, however, promoting it as something that might be more relevant than the Bible itself is not a good idea. It’s a movie. Why can’t we just leave it at that?

(David Behling is a rural resident of Albert Lea. His column appears on Tuesdays.)