Full disclosure: I'm an agnostic. Mark Roberts is a thoughtful and knowledgeable guy. I was puzzled by his comment that Leon Wieseltier's TNR review was an "insulting attack upon...most Christians." I read Wieseltier's review and saw it as specifically directed at Gibson's movie, not about other Christians.

I haven't seen the movie, which if I had, might help me understand Mark Roberts's opinion of Wieseltier.

For some reason, I was reminded about when my daughter was about 2 years old. Like all children she loved to draw people in the funny stick-figure style. There was a house, with a path, a sun shining, and 3 stick figures of varying sizes holding hand (Mummy, Daddy, her). Almost always though, she would draw three hills in the back of the drawings. There would be a big hill in the middle, and a smaller hill on either side. On those hills, she would draw a cross. The biggest hill had the biggest cross. It was Jesus' cross. It always 'belonged' in her drawings.

When I think back to those drawings, I think of the theological statement that was made by a 2-year-old. Whatever we do and however we live, everything should be seen with the cross in the background. It's what Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice on for us. He died so we could live with Him forever. That's what the Passion movie is all about. That's what people see - how much Jesus loves us. Who can go to the foot of the cross and not weep?

I haven't seen the movie and have only read a number of reviews. It's difficult to separate the movie's quality from Jesus' message. Separating the movie quality from the message may be what's causing some of the controversy.

One problem with the movie's quality seems to be its excessive focus on the violent beating of Christ. I understand the Christian concept that Christ suffered for our sins. But in a movie depiction of the Passion, a balance has to be found with how much violence is shown on screen to make the point of Christ's suffering. At some point the violence shown to make this point in the movie can become pornographic.

Think of it this way. Suppose Mel Gibson made an updated remake of "Romeo and Juliet." He wants to deeply make us aware of the passionate emotions between the two lovers. So with his movie he spends maybe 60 minutes of the 120 minute movie showing the two lovers in graphic sexual sequences---writhing in wild sex, closeups of sweat and genitalia, etc. He says to critics, "Well you can't really understand the passion of two lovers until it's really beaten into your brains by seeing on screen the writhing, steamy sex they had together, hour after hour, day after day." The public would be outraged and call it pornographic.

In this fictional Mel Gibson remake of Romeo and Juliet, critics would argue the excessive, graphic sex ruined the artistic quality of the film. In the end the excessive graphic sex simply takes away from the real message of the love between these two people.

Unfortunately it seems that the extended sequences of graphic violence of "The Passion" are causing it to be an inferior work of art. Regardless of the importance of its message.