Evangelical Hypocrisy
Christians are anticipating The Da Vinci Code movie with a mix of expectation and dread. The expectation is based on knowing that Jesus’ name will be, at least for a short time, on many tongues. This may create opportunities to discuss Him with friends, family neighbors and co-workers. The dread is based on the knowledge that Dan Brown, in his book, and thus in the film, took great liberties with history, presenting as factual a mix of fact, fiction and fantasy. He does not help the reader or watcher to know what is true and what is not, what is factual and what is only the product of his imagination. Brown is far from honest when he declares in the opening pages of his novel that “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” It has been shown by men far more knowledgeable and capable than I am that this is, plain and simply, nonsense.
It was only two years ago that another film exploded into the box office, causing people to consider Jesus as perhaps they had not considered Him before. Christians heralded the arrival of this movie, defending the film and its creator from charges of being outrageously violent and being anti-semitic. They lauded the film—praised it—as being a beautiful, accurate, stunning portrayal of the last hours of Jesus’ life. Yet in many ways this film, The Passion of the Christ, took as many liberties with the truth as does The Da Vinci Code. Just as Dan Brown has an agenda that he seeks to further in the work of fiction he declares to be fact, so Mel Gibson, who wrote, produced and championed The Passion of the Christ wished to further an agenda in mixing truth with error, fact with fiction.
This time, though, Christians are not embracing the film. Nor should they. Yet there is no small amount of hypocrisy in overlooking the unbiblical agenda of one man, celebrating his film, while criticizing another and lamenting his film.
I posted an early review of The Passion of the Christ and followed this review with several articles dealing with topics ranging from the inaccuracies of the film to my reflections on how God might use it nevertheless. I received no small amount of grief for criticizing the film and questioning the discernment of those who gave it a blanket endorsement. My review was read by tens of thousands of people and I received countless comments and emails questioning my motives, exhorting me to repent for posting it and occasionally even encouraging me to persevere. I argued in the subsequent series of articles that The Passion of the Christ presented a distinctly Roman Catholic version of the events surrounding Jesus’ life. I showed that Mel Gibson, while faithful to the text of Scripture in some areas, was willing to part from historical fact when his Roman Catholic faith required that he do so. Gibson could have created a film that was simply accurate to the Scriptures. Had he done so, it would have been consistent with what Protestants believe about Jesus’ life and death. Alas, he did not. Rather, Gibson created a film that portrayed Jesus in a manner that is consistent with Roman Catholicism and thus is, in many important ways, inconsistent with Scripture.
It was disturbing to see how many prominent Christian leaders voiced their support for this film and what terms they used to do so. They described the movie as being “factually accurate,” “very accurate [in the details],” “realistic,” “biblical,” “an accurate account,” “a true representation of Jesus” and “close to the Scriptures.” In certain aspects of the film this was true. Yet in many cases it could not have been further from the truth.
Before I proceed, allow me to grant that there is a difference in scope and seriousness between the inaccuracies found in Gibson’s film and those found in The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown goes so far as to suggest that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, fathered a child with her, and intended for her to be his successor as head of the church. When we compare what Gibson presented in The Passion of the Christ to these claims, Gibson’s errors may seem trifling. Yet the errors the The Da Vinci Code do not come with the endorsement, recommendation and praise of a multitude of prominent Christian teachers and leaders! Neither will pastors encourage Christians to attend this movie as an act of devotion.
Allow me to present just two of the more serious errors, or series of errors, that clearly show that Mel Gibson was attempting to portray Jesus in a way that was consistent not with Scripture, but with his own agenda of furthering his Catholic understanding of the Christian faith.
The first concerns Mary, whose role in Christianity is an obvious and well-documented point of disagreement between Protestants and Catholics. Mary was presented in a light far different than what we find in Scripture. Gibson, consistent with Catholic theology, showed her taking a role as a suffering servant, suffering along with Jesus. This is necessary for her to assume her role as “co-Mediatrix.” She is presented as being Jesus’ support and strength during His trials; many times Jesus falls and is unable to get up, but after looking at His mother He finds the strength to carry on; the disciples all call Mary “mother”; Mary is shown submitting her will to God’s, saying “so be it” as if her consent was necessary for God’s plan to proceed (in the same way that Jesus’ consent was necessary). This is clearly not the Mary of the Bible, but the Mary of the Roman Catholic Church who reigns beside Jesus as Queen of Heaven.
The second error concerns the source for much of Gibson’s material. As I proved conclusively in an article entitled The Gospel According to Emmerich, Gibson drew heavily from Sister Anne Emmerich’s devotional book entitled The Dolorous Passion of Christ. Emmerich is known to some as being a mystic, stigmatist, visionary, and prophet who supposedly received visions from God in which He provided to her details about Jesus’ last days that are not contained in the Bible. This extra-Biblical account of Jesus’ suffering provided many of the intricate but important details in the movie. Among these are some fairly innocuous details such as Simon and Jesus linking arms as they held the cross and Pilate’s wife providing a cloth to Mary which she used to wipe Jesus’ blood from the floor. But it also provided inspiration for some of the more pivotal details. Gibson put Emmerich’s words in the mouth of Peter in an expression of unworthiness before Mary. “0, Mother,” Peter said, “speak not to me-thy Son is suffering more than words can express: speak not to me!” Most troubling, though, is that The Dolorous Passion of Christ provided many of the words Jesus spoke. A great number of Jesus’ words from the movie are drawn not from the Bible but from Emmerich. The movie makes no attempt to show what was drawn directly from the Bible and what was drawn from extra-Biblical writing.
Christians were willing and eager to tolerate the abuse of Scripture when it suited their purposes. Churches around the globe (though mostly around the North American continent) mobilized to take advantage of the opportunity to reach people through The Passion of the Christ. Marketing companies proclaimed it the greatest evangelistic opportunity since Pentecost. Thousands of churches encouraged their members to attend. Millions did. Many churches bought thousands of tickets and gave them to members of the local communities. Mel Gibson made hundreds of millions of dollars, largely through the efforts of Protestants (money he has since used, in part, to build a largely private Roman Catholic church where he can celebrate his Pre-Tridentine brand of Catholicism). Evangelicals were only too pleased to part with their money to support this film. It was disturbing, tragic even, to see Protestants commit themselves so fully to a film that was, in so many ways, inaccurate and unbiblical.
The Da Vinci Code, when examined objectively, may well be less harmful than The Passion of the Christ. Most Christians know that it contains error and takes great liberties with historical fact. The lines have been firmly drawn. But in The Passion of the Christ Christians were told they were watching fact when much of what they were watching was mere fiction, fiction that would seek to draw them not to the Christ of the Bible, but to the Christ of Rome and to His mother. They were told that Mel Gibson was a brother in Christ, when in fact his Pre-Tridentine Catholicism rejects the faith of Protestants. Just like Dan Brown, Mel Gibson brought his movie before the public as part of a wider agenda. And like Brown, this agenda was distinctly anti-biblical. Is it consistent then, or is it hypocritical that evangelicals were willing to embrace The Passion of the Christ but are so dead-set against The Da Vinci Code?
Comments (70) »
1. Irish Calvinist
April 21, 2006
12:12 PM
Great post!
Thank you for highlighting the inconsistencies…errr hypocrisy….It is the subtle omissions or additions that prove costly!!
(i.e. the prevailing justification chasm that exists between Rome & biblical Christianity…made righteous vs. declared righteous)
2. Ochuk
April 21, 2006
12:17 PM
Sorry Tim, but you are over-reaching here. An over-emphasis on Mary and some character development on the guy who helped Jesus carry the cross that comes from a RC interpretation of the events is hardly anything substantial by which you could call evangelical movie goers “hypocrites.”
Dan Brown’s novel/movie erases EVERYTHING Christians believe.
I can understand why some would not want to read Henri Nouwen’s books, because he is a Catholic, but that is far different from reading Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan.
While there are significant differences between Catholics and Protestants, there still some important common ground (the gospels are true, Jesus was the Son of God) that just can’t be accepted by pagan revisionists.
3. Angela
April 21, 2006
12:25 PM
I never understood why there was ever such a big deal made about this book. It should be a clue to everyone that it is found in the fiction section. Even my non-Christian writing teacher said that it was completely fictional. (He also said his writing classes could come up with something much better than that.) It’s never been a question that the book is fictional.
4. Patrick O'Hannigan
April 21, 2006
12:29 PM
Tim,
I don’t think DVC and TPOTC are even remotely comparable, because Mel Gibson approached his project with a seriousenss of purpose that Dan Brown did not.
Perhaps your anti-Catholic animus (and sometimes it does seem to be precisely that) has lead you to read more into TPOTC than Gibson intended. There’s nothing in the film about Mary being a co-mediatrix, for example. Her saying “so be it” is the resignation of a loving and wise mother to the inevitable, not some kind of permission for the ensuing chain of events. Moreover, as a teenager, Mary had already shown her fidelity to God’s plan— hence her reply to the angel Gabriel, “I am the maidservant of the Lord; be it done unto me according to your word.”
It is true that not eveything Jesus says in TPOTC comes from scripture, but nothing he says is inconsistent with scripture, so the script can’t be called an “abuse of scripture.” DVC, on the other hand, abuses history up, down, and sideways.
You need to give both Mel Gibson and your own theology a second, more charitable look. In complaining that Protestants “were told that Mel Gibson is a brother in Christ, when in fact his pre-Tridentine Catholicisim rejects the faith of Protestants,” you make several mistakes. First, Gibson’s faith may be Tridentine by your lights, but it can’t reasonably be called “Pre-Tridentine.” Second, Gibson, like all Catholics, does confess Jesus as savior, redeemer, and Lord, just as you do. By Catholic lights, Protestants are “separated bretheren,” but brothers and sisters in the Lord nonetheless. We reject the Protestant proposition(s), but not the people who hold them. Similarly, Gibson takes scripture seriously not in spite of his Catholicism, but because of it.
Your implicit assumption in identifying “brotherhood in Christ” with “the faith of Protestants” is that the faith of Protestants is the faith of the early church. Not so, say the Eastern Orthodox. Not so, say all those Catholics in communion with the Latin rite. Naturally, you’d disagree, but that only brings any honest discussion back to church history and questions of authority that we’re not likely to resolve in this forum.
You’re free to disagree with any or all of what I’ve said, but it should be obvious that your DVC and TPOTC comparison is suspect at best, because it depends entirely on polemic and misinterpretation. Mel Gibson was working to build the church up. Dan Brown was working to tear the church down. One’s for the Kingdom of God, and the other consigns Jesus to (quite literally) the Kingdom of France.
How you see hypocrisy in different Christian reactions to the fruits of their respective labors boggles the mind, and, if I may say so, troubles the heart.
5. belinda
April 21, 2006
12:38 PM
I believe it’s much more dangerous to have a film like ‘The Passion’ where the lies are so subtle than an obviously false movie like ‘The Da Vinci Code’. Why are we so willing to overlook the emphasis on Mary …even Mel Gibson was surprised that Prostestants were so willing to do so. He has produced a movie that caused thousands of christians to blindly embrace and has further blurred the lines between true christianity and Rome. I can only imagine how the reformers would have reacted to such apathy. Of course God can use Dan Brown’s movie just as much as ‘The Passion’ to produce dialogue leading to His Word opening the eyes of some. But that doesn’t excuse us for being so gullible and accepting of of subtle heresy over much more overt heresy.
6. Eric
April 21, 2006
12:54 PM
(long time reader, first time caller…. errr… commentor)
Thanks for the post Tim. Truth is something we should defend. So I agree that whether the details or implications are BIG or small - they should be of concern.
My concern with TPOTC was with how the Christian community was embracing Mel Gibson and putting him on a pedastal. His lifestyle before, and after TPOTC has been questionable. We should always be careful when praising men.
thanks again for your insight Tim
7. Renee
April 21, 2006
1:55 PM
It’s the “subtle” lies that will fool amny.
Thanks Tim for a great observation and write up.
8. Kobby Bra
April 21, 2006
2:06 PM
Another excellent post Tim, keep them coming. I agree whole heartedly with the post and with the comments made by ‘Belinda’. Truth mixed with a lie is far more dangerous than pure lie. If that were not so why would the devil take on the form of an angel of light to deceive the sons of men. Because we would see him for who he truly is…d uh.
9. david
April 21, 2006
2:29 PM
Patrick,
We know what you believe. You’re Catholic. Yes, there is such a thing as anti-Catholic animus. There was, after all, that thing we call the Reformation. There is an unbridgable chasm between Rome and Geneva. We do not consider ourselves “separated brethren,” so drop that line.
Now, here’s a question: What if I trolled Catholic blogs and condescendingly rebuked them whenever they wrote something anti-protestant? Wouldn’t that be foolish? Wouldn’t it even be considered rude and pugnacious?
Another great post, Tim, and so right on.
10. Ralph Cabrera
April 21, 2006
2:42 PM
Tim,
I think what you are trying to say here is that both movies are based on inaccuracies; the hypocrisy you’re pointing out is that we’re willing to swallow TPOTC’s inaccuracies while rejecting DVC’s. I agree that it’s hypocrisy. I didn’t care for the huge evangelical hype that came out regarding TPOTC (or ‘The End of the Spear’, either).
God’s given me wonderful grace in correcting my view of entertainment in general. Its stronghold in my life horribly skewed my view of God and world around me. I feel like a person who’s been delivered from drug addiction and am now thinking (more) clearly.
The following story has great application:
A father was asked by his teenage children if they could see a certain movie. He asked them what it was about, what was in it, etc. They responded that it was really good, had a great story, good moral tale, with just a little bit of violence, sex, nudity, profanity, bad attitudes, poor representation of parents/authority, unscriptural views of God and the world He made, inaccuracies of facts, and self-worship. He said he would think about it.
Meanwhile, he asked them to help him make a pan of brownies. While they were mixing the batter, he went out to the yard, got a little piece of dried dog poop, ground it up to a fine powder, and added it to the batter while they were mixing it. He put the pan in the oven and when they were done, asked them if they would like a piece. They all rejected it, to which he asked why. They stated the fact that it had dog poop in it. He asked them what’s wrong, it’s just a little bit, it was finely ground up, well distributed throughout, you won’t even taste it. They still refused. He told them that he won’t let them go see the movie, either.
Any time after that when they asked to see a movie that had questionable content, he would ask them to have some of his ‘special’ brownies…
11. Mark Lauterbach
April 21, 2006
3:07 PM
Tim
An excellent post … I might add some historical perspective. Thirty years ago when the Jesus movement was in full force and I had all my hair, there was much support for “Jesus Christ Superstar” and “Godspell” — even though they were theologically deficient.
Twenty years ago there was a huge uproar over “The Last Temptation of Christ” — which is more like DaVinci Code than The Passion. It was not really worse than Superstar. I saw the movie with friends who were not Christians on the condition that they read the Gospel of John — we were up past midnight contrasting the two. It was an idiotic movie — utterly unappealing — and we evangelicals did more to promote it than the best advertisers on Fifth Avenue in NY.
I have also lived through the many evangelistic films put out by Billy Graham. They were watched by Christians. I have seen an excellent movie about Earnest Gordon (To End All Wars) rejected by secular outlets because it was too religious and by Christian outlets because it as too violent. It was not a movie about about Jesus, but about the influence of Christians in a Japanese internment camp in WW2. It probably would have altered people’s impressions of Christians in a postive way. Much like “Chariots of Fire.”
My overall impression is that we over-react to anything that threatens Christianity directly and totally miss things that undermine all things Christian. “Star Trek” was more anti-Christian than any of these.
Or we expect mass-media to do evangelism for us when we do not do it personally. Movies are conversation starters — that is about all.
We took friends to The Passion and they were not pleased with it. They noted it seemed like two hours of observing torture — not something they wanted to do and only went because of respect for us.
I have read DaVinci Code cover to cover — it is not great literature but it is a great airport book. Yes, he postulates a ridiculous plotline. But the real question is — why do people like the book? What is it in American culture today that makes it so appealing? And is the appeal really the religious storyline or the page-turner quality of the writer?
We will use it as a conversation starter — that is all. We will give our people some evaluations of the movie and book to share with a friend and then encourage them to get together over lunch to chat. They do not have to go to the movie to do this — but they may have to read the book. Perhaps it will lead to some conversations. That is all.
12. Sled Dog
April 21, 2006
3:16 PM
I gotta agree with Ochuk and others…apples and oranges. As for THE PASSION, sure there were some liberties taken, but the overall thrust of the movie is that Christ died for our sins…and rose again! DA VINCI CODE is another animal, tearing down foundational elements of Christian doctrine.
13. GWilly
April 21, 2006
3:41 PM
To Belinda,
I think John Calvin would have had Gibson burned, or at least publicly flogged.
To Tim,
It’s an interesting commentary, with some merit. Many Catholics were probably affirmed and touched by The Passion. I, a Protestant, was convicted of how much suffering Christ endured on my behalf. It’s possible that some, or many, who are weak in the understanding of Scripture might be a little confused by the liberties Gibson took, however, I doubt anyone developed their core beliefs around any of the Maryism in the film, any more than they thought Satan was an androgynous bystander with an ugly midget kid, or that Jesus foretold the use of chairs.
14. Tim Challies
April 21, 2006
4:14 PM
“I think John Calvin would have had Gibson burned, or at least publicly flogged.”
On what do you base that belief?
15. stephen shields
April 21, 2006
4:34 PM
Hi Tim,
for what it’s worth, with respect, I disagree with your comparison. Just as Jesus spoke of the differences of few lashes with many, I think we have to differentiate the degree of error that we see in DVC from what we saw in Gibson’s effort.
16. GWilly
April 21, 2006
4:45 PM
Aw, Tim, I thought we were friends. It’s a very uneducated opinion based on Calvin’s execution of Michael Servetus, condemned as a heretic, and on the supposition, that had Gibson produced The Passion and then visited Geneva in the mid-16th century, that his artistic license would not have been well-received.
But if I can’t throw a little humor into our discussion now and again, I’ll just watch quietly from the sidelines.
17. jeremy
April 21, 2006
4:49 PM
“I showed that Mel Gibson, while faithful to the text of Scripture in some areas, was willing to part from historical fact when his Roman Catholic faith required that he do so. Gibson could have created a film that was simply accurate to the Scriptures. Had he done so, it would have been consistent with what Protestants believe about Jesus’ life and death. Alas, he did not. Rather, Gibson created a film that portrayed Jesus in a manner that is consistent with Roman Catholicism and thus is, in many important ways, inconsistent with Scripture.” GIbson is Catholic, why would he make a film that is consistent with protestantism?
“As I proved conclusively in an article entitled The Gospel According to Emmerich, Gibson drew heavily from Sister Anne Emmerich’s devotional book entitled The Dolorous Passion of Christ.” I’m pretty sure Gibson offered that information himself.
18. rixon
April 21, 2006
4:49 PM
Even if TPOTC had been “biblical”, we would still have to deal with the question, “What is the wisdom of depicting our LORD in any way, whether it be in film, portraits or storybooks?”
19. Frank Martens
April 21, 2006
5:03 PM
Tim you say… “Is it consistent then, or is it hypocritical that evangelicals were willing to embrace The Passion of the Christ but are so dead-set against The Da Vinci Code?”
Depends on who’s going to see. For some (most) it was pure ignorance to go see The Passion, I had no clue this is where Gibson drew half his script from.
My problem is this… Why would I want to find entertainment out of the sufferings of Christ, but not only that, I didn’t like the way Mary was portrayed through the film.
Thing is… With the Da Vinci Code, pastors know well and good that the film is anti-biblical because it directly attacts. A.K.A… The wolf attacking the sheep… however… The Passion is like the wolf in sheeps clothing.
20. Minky
April 21, 2006
5:15 PM
Rixon, good question. How many people are convinced that Jesus was a white guy, based on the paintings? (I mean “white” as in “Euro,” not as in “Caucasoid.” I know Semitic peoples are counted as Caucasoid. It’s all bosh, anyway, but…)
How many people, when they think of God the Father, think of Him as an elderly bearded man, but without Santa Claus’ good humor, thanks to the Sistine Chapel?
We tend to visualize based on what we’ve seen and thus, put limitations on God.
The best “depiction” I’ve ever viewed was in the Heston version of “Ben Hur.” You didn’t see His face at all. Ever. They even blotted it out post-production in the sentencing scene. (One of my favorite movies!)
21. Allan
April 21, 2006
5:31 PM
‘Christians were willing and eager to tolerate the abuse of Scripture when it suited their purposes.’
Isn’t this just a tragedy of the triumph of an egotistical pragmatism over a saint’s responsibility of loyalty & honour toward Jesus, THE WORD OF GOD?!! Is in not simply an apostasy from His Person? A denial of Him? “He that loves Me keeps My words.”
When will the CHURCH, world-wide, begin to corporately repent?
And God DOES sometimes make liars recant publicly. (His book strongly represents itself as a truth expose.) In defending the charge of plagiarism made by Leigh and Baigent (a locally raised man!) Brown said to the court; “The Da Vinci Code is a novel, and nothing more -pure fiction, and not even historical conjecture.”
22. Allan
April 21, 2006
5:34 PM
“What is the wisdom of depicting our LORD in any way, whether it be in film, portraits or storybooks?”
In my view it is a breach of the Second Commandment of Moses.
23. Dan Hames
April 21, 2006
6:00 PM
I watched “The Passion” last night for the first time (I was a bit late), so it was interesting to read the post and following comments with the film fresh in my mind.
I found the film deeply touching- as another commenter said, to be faced with a graphic representation of the suffering of the Lord Jesus was probably quite profitable. I spent significant time after the film in prayer, praise and tears. I felt as if something had been added to Cowper’s words:
“E’er since by faith I saw the stream Thy flowing wounds supply, redeeming love has been my theme and shall be ‘til I die.”
I saw a phsyical depiction of the stream which meant that my faith had a little less work to do; and it did lead me to appreciate the cross in a new way.
I felt I was able to ignore the obvious centrality of Mary in the film, to overlook the “licence” (imagary of Satan, the crow pecking eyes out, the early invention of chairs). As someone mentioned, there’s a fair chance that some views wouldn’t realise these things weren’t biblical.
The problem is, as you say Tim, that we wholeheartedly embraced “The Passion” without highlighting the causes for concern (which are actually not that subtle). I think it’s good that we have been able to use and benefit from the film- who else would make a positive, revernt blockbuster about Jesus?- but we have been too naive in the way we have used it.
Hackles are up over The Da Vinci Code, and as others have said, I read it and enjoyed it very much (tacky as it is) but wouldn’t possibly take it seriously in a million years. I know people that have, and bizarrely it’s been a topic of conversation with them which means I’ve spoken about Jesus more with them than ever before.
If we Christians can do a little bit of basic apologetics and reserach a bit of church history, this film could be just as much an opportunity for us as “The Passion” has been. They’re both flawed in various ways, both hardly a gospel sermon (and incentally can’t replace one!), but they are reference points for us in popular culture which we ought to engage with- and we should engage with care, cunning and plenty of prayer.
Dan
24. Chris Taylor
April 21, 2006
6:12 PM
When I read the title I thought you were headed in a different direction.
I think the hyopcrisy is in the fact that pastors are denouncing the movie yet churches are spending thousands upon thousands of dollars promoting their anti-Code sermon series’ that will take place over the next few weeks all the while promoting the movie more than hollywood is. I’ve seen nothing on TV to this point about the movie. But one local church near me took out a half-page ad in one of the local papers “promoting” his series, and at the same time, included phrases like “Academy Award winning actor Tom Hanks”, etc. Negative promotion is sometimes better than positive promotion. Our church may be the only one in the area not jumping on the “outreach” opportunity during our Sunday morning services. We’re just going to stay in Ephesians.
Using something from hollywood, whether positively or negatively, is still exploitation and speaks to the pragmatism of the day.
Pax Tecum
25. Kevin
April 21, 2006
6:18 PM
I didn’t read all the comments here…so if this has already been brought up, I apologize. But it seems to me that no one is raising a couple of what I consider to be major issues with Gibson’s movie. First, should we be making visual images of the Son of God? Is that a violation of the 2nd Commandment? Calvin argued that since it is impossible to accurately portray Christ in his divinity and humanity, images of him should not be made. Now some might say, “But what if people are won to Christ through this movie?” Well, does the end justify the means? And that also brings me to my 2nd concern: Can people be won to Christ through visual images? Romans chapter 10 speaks of the importance of preaching. it speaks of the fact that people cannot come to know Christ without a PREACHER…not without a visual presentation. Yes, preaching may seem foolish today, but it is the means that God has ordained to bring people to faith in Christ.
26. Joel
April 21, 2006
6:51 PM
I believe it’s much more dangerous to have a film like ‘The Passion’ where the lies are so subtle
Yes, if they’re lies. But an essential element of a lie is intent. If Gibson included errors in his film (and we’ve already been round and round on this one), he did so intending to tell the truth; i.e., his intent was to portray Christ in what he considers an orthodox manner. Brown’s intent was to present falsehoods about Christ in order to titillate readers with heterodoxy. I doubt very much that Brown actually believes the dreck he put in his book, but even if he does believe the essential points, he was deliberately fictionalizing to make money. Gibson’s work was an expression of love for Jesus.
27. Kim
April 21, 2006
6:54 PM
I really appreciate Ralph’s comments (10) and his story of application. I will think of it often when I ‘m consider whether a movie or book or event (something permissible) is benificial to me or not.
Praise God for HIS wonder working power in HIS saints that HE, by HIS grace, tears down destructive strongholds in our lives.
As well… a quote from From Baxter’s Practical Works: “Would you dare pray to God to bless your cards, and dice, and stage-plays, to the good of your soul or body? Would your conscience tell you that this is but a mocking of God? No recreation is lawful, which you can not pray for a blessing on.”
28. Tim Challies
April 21, 2006
7:02 PM
” “E’er since by faith I saw the stream Thy flowing wounds supply, redeeming love has been my theme and shall be ‘til I die.” “
That’s not a fair comparison, for he never saw Jesus the way you did. He saw him BY FAITH. You saw a flawed, human representation.
“I saw a phsyical depiction of the stream which meant that my faith had a little less work to do; and it did lead me to appreciate the cross in a new way.”“
That is a very scary statement! I would spend some time thinking about whether God would wish you to let this movie do work your faith is supposed to do!
29. Tim Wirth
April 21, 2006
8:08 PM
Hey Tim: Your review and insight is spot on. Mel Gibson had a agenda he wanted to get across and the evangelicals and many others were slickly roped in. I have often wondered why The Passion had so little about the resurection in it (even though I did like the ending shot with the look on Jesus’ face). But with the Da Vinci Code look on the bright side. Josh Mcdowell and others will sell a ton of books and materials to others on how to combat the evil Dan Brown. The other Tim
(P.S. Just for the record I managed to post without mentioning Rick Warren) (PPS opps blew that one)
30. Brian Thornton
April 21, 2006
8:28 PM
I have not read the comments here yet, so the topic of my remarks may have already been covered elsewhere. Tim said this in his article:
The Da Vinci Code, when examined objectively, may well be less harmful than The Passion of the Christ.
I AGREE 100%!!!
It is rather easy to identify the heresies in The Da Vinci Code, but The Passion of the Christ was SO STRONGLY endorsed and pushed by Evangleical churches and leaders that its portrayal of Christ has severely muddied the waters of the real Biblical Jesus for many an undiscerning Christian.
I was one who had it pushed upon me and endorsed by my leaders, and in turn I strongly encouraged those I was teaching in my adult Bible study class to go and see it. Our church even purchased an entire showing on its opening night so that many in our church could view it together.
Afterwards…I felt like I had been betrayed by my mentors and by those who I had looked up to for so many years in my church. The opening here in Atlanta was on a Wednesday night - I remember it well - and on Thursday I wrote a letter of apology to those who I had misled, and an admonition to those who had been responsible for showing a total lack of discernment for the flock.
Tim, thank you for your courage to stick your neck out on a topic such as this one.
You are right on the mark!
31. Francisco
April 21, 2006
9:48 PM
Before getting sidetracked with questions like “why do people buy the book?” (which I admit I’d like to know, but honestly I wouldn’t waste my time reading a bunch of lies. It is enough with all what godly men have to say about it -and for free!). Now, I remember that when TPOTC made it on theaters at least in my church we were advised to read the account of the passion in the gospels before going. Also, I remember that a well-known broadcast network featured a bunch of babblers who said that because of TPOTC “revival will come into the land” … That movies like those have a market niche speaks volumes of how we Christians act in this world (Where are the Francis Schaeffers of today!?). I’d dare to say that both our lazyness and busyness are the fuel behind the fact of having those religious movies becoming so popular…
Whatever happened to discernment?
Let God be true and every man a liar (Rom 3:4)
32. pilgrim
April 22, 2006
12:18 AM
I’m with Tim as far as his criticisms of the Passion film.
A group from our church watched the movie and afterwards most of us caught several problems.
Don’t get me started on the Passion film, or on commenting about the evangelicals that thought you were a heretic if you didn’t embrace the movie as the greatest thing since the Apostles. (I do not exaggerate—I have encountered such people.)
33. Joel
April 22, 2006
12:27 AM
Don’t get me started on the Passion film, or on commenting about the evangelicals that thought you were a heretic if you didn’t embrace the movie as the greatest thing since the Apostles. (I do not exaggerate—I have encountered such people.)
Ironic; I’m thought a heretic in other circles because I do agree with most of what’s in the movie. :)
34. Dan Hames
April 22, 2006
7:14 AM
“That is a very scary statement! I would spend some time thinking about whether God would wish you to let this movie do work your faith is supposed to do!”
Tim, you’ve misunderstood me here. Perhaps that was down to my bad explaination in the first place.
In no way do I think that seeing the film can work in place of faith. It’s not really Jesus on film, it’s not really Israel, it’s not even really the gospel account! Of course it does nothing on a deep level to even add to faith.
But I do think that the visual representation was very useful in causing me to appreciate to a greater degree the sufferings of the Lord Jesus. My use of Cowper was perhaps a bit clumsy; I still only see the blood of Jesus and its cleansing thorough the eyes of faith. Mel Gibson has nothing to do with that!
But I’ve seen something fairly realistic that has caused me to appreciate and think about the suffering of Jesus more than I have done before.
I hope that clarifys things. I promise I’m not normally a heretic! ;o)
35. Bec
April 22, 2006
9:09 AM
Hi,
I just read that post and all the comments, and while I could say much, I will just say that it was helpful, so thank you. Keep up the good writing.
36. Tim Challies
April 22, 2006
10:17 AM
“I do think that the visual representation was very useful in causing me to appreciate to a greater degree the sufferings of the Lord Jesus.”
Did the visual representation help you understand the fact that Jesus’ physical sufferings were only the tip of the iceberg? Did they help you understand that the greater suffering was hidden as God turned his back on His Son? This is what no movie can portray. I worry that the truest, deepest sufferings of Jesus were lost in the physical bloodbath.
37. Zach Nielsen
April 22, 2006
10:42 AM
Tim,
It seems a bit inconsistent to critique Gibson for using extra Biblical sources for his text when so much of the movie was made up out of his head as well. The scene with Jesus as a boy, the Judas experience, etc. All over the movie there are parts that deviate from the Biblical text. Thus if you are going to critique Gibson for using Emmerich’s text, then shouldn’t you also be opposed to every part of the movie that is not directly linked to scripture as unbiblical? I’m not sure that what he added really takes that much away from the text or poses any real harm to the gospel.
38. David Chalkley
April 22, 2006
11:19 AM
Tim, I think this is one of the best postings I have ever read by you. Thank you for saying those things.
39. James Hakim
April 22, 2006
11:29 AM
The biggest problem for me with TPOTC isn’t that we don’t see something too different from the real Jesus, but something too close—just going secondhand here, so correct me if I’m wrong. I didn’t see it for reasons that will be obvious shortly.
If I am a believer, and I see it, how can I respond, except to worship? Even just thinking about Christ drinking the cup of wrath for all who would believe in Him… not just trying to make salvation possible, but actually securing it… a sacrifice without which God could not even have justly sent His Spirit to make me alive… these things literally move me almost to tears, just commenting on a blog! Now, what if I had a worship response like that, and instead of my mind being filled with the glory of God’s attributes and works, especially in the accomplishing and application of redemption… it was filled with
an image
of Jim Caviezel
That’s no better than a golden cow, people. The Israelites believed that was Yahweh too. Bye bye second commandment (that’s 1b for the Romanists in the audience).
I did not believe that I could view the film without responding with worship, and so I didn’t see it at all. If you were able to do so, either you are quite stone-hearted or much more disciplined in your will and affections than I am (the latter is not at all a bad thing).
It gets worse.
If I am an unbeliever, there is a danger(!) that I might respond to it with faith.
Now, I’m not discounting that an unbeliever might come having previously heard of the glorious exchange of double imputation that took place in Christ’s atoning work, as He willingly drank to the dregs the cup from whose horror He had shrunk, so that we might drink ourselves full of the cup of blessing, which was rightfully His. Or even that God could make the blessed truth of 2 Cor 5:21 in an immediate way by His Spirit (though I would argue that the Word is the ordinary means, and this latter quite extraordinary).
However, consider someone who has not heard the Scriptural doctrine of the atonement. He too is likely to be moved by the film (I daresay many “evangelicals” were hoping so)—even moved to some sort of faith. Faith in what? He has come to a Roman or Socinian or Arminian or other equally heretical view in which he now performs some act or service to God, even if he thinks that this service is only believing in Jesus, to earn salvation. And he does it. And he thinks he is saved, as he trusts in something other than Christ alone (we just can’t get away from those SOLAs here). And he is twice the child of hell he was before.
So while it is (marginally) possible to watch TPOTC to some measure of profit, it is much more likely to cause believers to fall into idolatry and to immunize the lost to conversion.
In comparison to this The DaVinci Code is rather benign. Do we really think that real believers are going to be shaken by it? Do we currently enjoy a culture in which the truth about Christ is widely accepted as factual by the unbelieving population… only to have this toppled be a mildly entertaining movie?
I am sincerely and gravely offended at the aspersion cast upon Christ in TDC, but I’m no Muslim who must go on a tirade every time my Lord is impugned. My Messiah physically came out of His grave, and He is coming back to vindicate His own name… and until then I will seek to bring Him honor in my conduct, as far as possible without sinning. Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus, and judge the Browns and Caviezels and Gibsons for their crimes against your glory and honor.
Maranatha!
40. diablaazul
April 22, 2006
2:07 PM
Re: David (# 9),
Is offering an opinion from a different perspective (in a polite manner, no less) now considering trolling? I had no idea!
It sounds like you’re suggesting that Protestant blogs are only for Protestants, and Catholic blogs are only for Catholics, and never the twain shall meet. Even besides the fact that this is not how the world works, it’s also not a very good way to learn, or to grow in understanding of what one believes and why. Aren’t we always supposed to be ready to give an answer for the faith we have?
Re: Tim’s post … To be frank, I think your comparison of the two movies is fatuous and dishonest. Fatuous, because it’s pretty obvious to most Christians, regardless of tradition, that The Passion and The Da Vinci Code are two very different animals. Dan Brown is claiming that Jesus was married and instituted a religion which amounts to little more than a goddess-obsessed orgy. And yet we are supposed to believe that The Passion is the more dangerous of the two films? I look on the news and I see reports of tourists flocking to Versailles and Westminster to see the “proof” of the claims made in The Da Vinci Code. I personally know a number of people who, because they read the book, really do believe that Jesus was married, and that the early Church suppressed the “feminine” aspects of Christianity. I have yet to hear a single report of anyone converting to Catholicism or beginning to venerate Mary after viewing the Passion.
Dishonest, because C.S. Lewis took liberties in his version of the Passion in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, and his other allegories set in the world of Narnia. I’m sure there are things that C.S. Lewis wrote in the Chronicles of Narnia that you would strongly disagree with. The conclusion of the Last Battle, in which Aslan tells Emmett that when he did good things in serving Tash, he was really serving Aslan, comes to mind as a good example of something I’m sure you would reject. Nevertheless, for some reason we have yet to hear you condemn the Chronicles of Narnia, or other allegories written by Protestants, as potentially “more harmful” than The Da Vinci Code. Why the double standard? Are literary or cinematic representations of the Christian faith only dangerous insofar as they are not Protestant, or are they dangerous because they can never fully capture the full truth of the Gospel? (Both arguments are silly, in my opinion, but the latter at least is more honest).
Of course, I’m a Catholic, so my opinion on this matter probably doesn’t count anyway.
41. pilgrim
April 22, 2006
4:22 PM
“Did the visual representation help you understand the fact that Jesus’ physical sufferings were only the tip of the iceberg? Did they help you understand that the greater suffering was hidden as God turned his back on His Son? This is what no movie can portray. I worry that the truest, deepest sufferings of Jesus were lost in the physical bloodbath.”
Exactly Tim, and in fact I was not moved by the torture of Cavaziel in the movie, because in my mind Christ’s suffering was much worse than what was in the movie—or could be.
I heard several say if you weren’t moved by those scenes you don’t have feelings, faith,etc.
Well I wasn’t moved —to me it was an actor simulating being tortured. And as I said the movie fell short of how I see it. And what I see in the gospels moves me.
42. Steve Camp
April 22, 2006
5:13 PM
Amen Tim—well done brother!
I posted heavily on this as well at AudienceONE and received thousands of “less than favorable comments” over a 4-week period simply for pointing out the Marian and Romanist focus of Gibson’s well made, but biblically vacant film.
To add to this “evangelical hypocrisy” were/are the numerous accolades showered on John Paul II after his passing by well-respected evangelical leaders for his “culture of life” agenda and conservative moral stances politically. How unfortunate that the gospel of sola fide can be silenced and the soul of evangelicalism purchased by anyone pushing family values, conservative politics, and a unbiblical, yet stirring view of the cross.
We are on The Downgrade today and we need repentance and reformation in the church. Sadly, there are no “Spurgeon’s” on the current recognized evangelical leadership landscape willing to risk all to herald that call.
Steve 2 Cor. 5:21
43. sholbob
April 22, 2006
5:19 PM
Just a quick note…The Bible says” by the foolishness of preaching”. There is no one in Hollywood that I will listen too especially by there movies and furthermore if more people would just read their Bible, their understanding of the world’s morals and the Bible’s are two totally different views.
44. James H
April 22, 2006
6:27 PM
Tim—
Thank you, brother, thank you! You have validated the biblical position (again!), and I must agree with you point-for-point (which I don’t always do with your posts).
I remember sitting in a Christian Reformed Church where I used to worship, and to prepare for the communion (think of it!), we watched a clip of The Passion of the Christ!!! I no longer attend the fellowship for this and other reasons.
I was infuriated and flabbergasted at this most UNREFORMED, unbiblical break of the 2cd commandment and what the Reformers called the “Regulative Principle of Worship.” To see an image of Christ in a “Reformed” church, and from a movie that was propagated by a prominent disciple of the ROMAN CATHOLIC church!! Outrageous!
Alright. I’m done frothing…
Posts #18, 22, 25 and 39 also hit this on the head: God forbids images in worship. Actually, He provided the only images we may use: The Lord’s Supper, and Baptism. Other than that, Scripture is sufficient for our needs. Passion plays and pictures stem from Medieval Rome, but Protestant history, tradition, and the Head of the true church (Christ the Lord) point us to the Word of God as altogether sufficient. To argue for the necessity or even slight value of movies (I’d go so far as to condemn the “Jesus Movie”) to communicate the Gospel impugns the very nature of Scripture.
Is the Bible sufficient for saving souls, or is it somehow now deficient? What happened to “Sola Scriptura”? What happened to the “foolishness of preaching”? What happened to the Reformation? Are we all marching back to Rome in a handbasket?
Another post had this comment:
” I have often wondered why The Passion had so little about the resurection in it (even though I did like the ending shot with the look on Jesus’ face).”
The reason TPOTC had “so little of the resurrection” in it is this: the movie is a visual MASS. In other words, the Popish Mass, rightfully condemned by all the Reformers and historic Reformational creeds as “idolatry”—is a re-sacrificing of the Son of God done each week by the officiating priest. It is a “bloodless sacrifice” that the priest offers up, leading up to the “miracle” of transubstantiation, where the elements of the bread and wine “become” the real Jesus, body and blood. This is why the congregation bows to the bread and wine to venerate and worship as if such an idolatrous practice were tenable!
This is NOT a “Christian” movie, friends. It is a “Roman Catholic” movie. Along with the Vatican and all false teachers, it has NO PLACE in the hearts and minds of God’s people, the true Israel.
One last thing: TPOTC is presented as fact. DVC is presented as pure fiction, not even conjecture, but pure fiction. Tim is right to condemn TPOTC—“a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Truth mixed with a “little” error is like drinking a bottle of water with just a “little” dung in it. Disgusting! This movie, like all the lies of Satan, looks and feels so close to the truth…but it’s danger is in it’s subtlety. Just like Satan in the Garden of Eden, the lies in the Passion movie are subtle, crafty, and difficult to discern without some knowledge of Roman Catholicism. Remember, though, that the little floating piece of manure really does spoil the rest of the bottled water just as “a little leavening leavens the whole lump.” Beware, says Christ, of the leavening of the Pharisees. It is just a little leavening, but the whole is ruined. TPOTC is FULL and DRIPPING with Rome’s “leavening” and her errors—why are so many lead to believe it has any place at all in the lives of those who live by “Sola Scriptura?” Have we lost our heritage?
Lamenting the loss of discernment, James H
45. N. L. White
April 22, 2006
7:27 PM
There is a mega-church in our area that rented out the theater for some of it’s members to go see TPOTC, while it’s Pastor began a series specificly against DVC on Resurrection Sunday. I know Christians must know or be taught the difference between fact and fiction especially concerning our Lord Jesus Christ but I personally think both are a waste of the church’s time and money. 1 Peter 3:18
46. diablaazul
April 22, 2006
8:24 PM
Actually, James H, you have it backwards. Dan Brown explcitly presents the “history” and “theology” in the Da Vinci Code as fact. It’s written right there in the preface to his book; go see for yourself. Mel Gibson made it very clear from the outset that The Passion of the Christ was his personal vision of the gospel account. It was not ever intended to be a perfect or strict representation of Scripture (and even if Gibson had intended it to be such, he would have failed, and it wouldn’t have made a very good movie, frankly, given how much Scripture doesn’t tell us about Jesus’ life and ministry). Again, a simple Google search will pull up a number of interviews in which Gibson makes it quite clear that the movie wasn’t intended to be a strict visual recreation of the gospels.
In sum: the outrageous claims made in DVC were presented as fact, which TPOTC was presented as a creative and personal interpretation of the gospels.
As for the use of images in worship … all I can say is, it’s interesting that something you see as clearly proscribed in scripture was seen as perfectly accetable - and what’s more, essential to a proper understanding of the incarnation - by both branches of the Early Church (Catholic and Orthodox), virtually from the very beginning. How odd.
47. donsands
April 22, 2006
9:08 PM
Very interesting thoughts. Some things here for me think over. I am open to seeing the flaws here. Satan is subtle, and in more ways than we could ever imagine.
I was very impacted by the Passion. I love the Lord Jesus, and am reformed in my faith. When I watched this movie, I notices all the license the director took with the true story. And I saw the Catholic influence all through the film, but it still gripped me. I believe I have a greater understanding of His love because of this film. The way they showed the hatred of the religious elite toward the Lord said a lot to me. The physical suffering was the heart of this film, and I was effected by it very much. I spoke with someone right after the film, who is not a believer, and he said that he believed other men suffered physical pain as Jesus did. I said,” perhaps, but no one ever has come close to suffering His emotional, and spiritual pain, His seperation from the perfect love He had with His Father for the sins of the world”. It’s a piece of art to ponder. And I saw a well made movie, that did not try to demean our Lord and Savior, but instead honor Him, and show that He suffered in a horrific way, died, and rose from the dead, though it was Catholicism through and through. I agree that the the Protestant Church should have made some distinctions within there endorsements.
As far as the Divinci Code. I have no interest in it whatsoever.
48. david
April 22, 2006
9:25 PM
diablaazul wrote: Re: David (# 9),
Is offering an opinion from a different perspective (in a polite manner, no less) now considering trolling? I had no idea!
It sounds like you’re suggesting that Protestant blogs are only for Protestants, and Catholic blogs are only for Catholics, and never the twain shall meet. Even besides the fact that this is not how the world works, it’s also not a very good way to learn, or to grow in understanding of what one believes and why. Aren’t we always supposed to be ready to give an answer for the faith we have?
First of all, condescending correction is not just “offering an opinion,” and it is never polite.
No, I am not suggesting that Catholics should stay away from Protestant blogs. I am saying that that difference needs to be recognized as the serious division that it is.
Don’t condescend to correct us for being Protestant. Protestants hate Catholicism. We consider Rome apostate. Accept it; it’s not going to change. Call us heretics and damn us to Hell and be done with it. Catholic counsels have already done so, and that doesn’t offend us.
But don’t come with that “separated brethren” nonsense. That’s just insulting. We don’t see it that way, and we don’t appreciate being corrected as naughty children. You can do that when we show up at Mass.
That is what I addressed in my comment to Patrick.
As for learning and growing in understanding of what we believes and why, we do that by studying the Bible and listening to teachers who stand on the doctrines of the Reformation, not by taking instruction from an apostate church.
Yes, we are to be ready to give an account for the hope within us. Our hope is spelled out in solas that you reject. Our faith is not the Catholic faith.
If my bluntness seems rough, well, that’s the way it is. Luther and Calvin were still more blunt, and that’s the side I stand on. I didn’t sign ECT.
49. James H
April 22, 2006
10:28 PM
Re: Diablaazul—
Interesting name, to be sure. Thanks for making my point for me. The point I was trying to make is the distinction between the religion of the Roman “church” and the Protestant, especially Reformed Christian church. That distinction is this: the nature of the Scripture (is it our final authority, is it clear in its meaning, etc.), and the nature of authority in the church. The papists, like Diablaazul (friend, that name sounds like “Beelzebub” to me, you might consider another…), place the final authority “buck stops here” stamp on the church and her traditions. The people of God are supposed to make their final appeal to the Word of God (and that doesn’t include “papal bulls” or “ex cathedra” statements)—defined as the 66 books of the closed canon of Scripture. At least, that’s what Jesus taught in John 14 and 16 and elsewhere…
As I said, you made my point when you said this:
“As for the use of images in worship … all I can say is, it’s interesting that something you see as clearly proscribed in scripture was seen as perfectly accetable - and what’s more, essential to a proper understanding of the incarnation - by both branches of the Early Church (Catholic and Orthodox), virtually from the very beginning. How odd.”
(Thanks for the “how odd” statement—I was promised by Christ that the Pharisees and their ilk would persecute me for holding to the truth.)
Your appeal to the idolatrous practices of the early church is meaningless in light of the second commandment, although in your Bible you might call it commandment “1-b”—yet another place where the papists interpret Scripture, which is plain as day, to suit their traditions taught by men.
God forbids images to be used in worship. For the papists to promote this movie, I take no issue. It’s a Roman Catholic movie by and large. When a Reformed Protestant promotes this film, it must (at best) be done in ignorance. Seeing this movie and saying that it “gives you a better understanding” of the suffering of Christ means that the Word of God alone (remember: Sola Scriptura?) is insufficient or deficient, and the movie “helps” the deficiency of Scripture. From a Reformed, Protestant Christian point of view, then, (all the papists: enjoy your film) to view this movie demeans the Christ of the Covenant, the Lord of the Church, the Law of God, and our Reformed heritage gets buried.
As for Dan Brown’s FICTION novel, friends: it’s fiction. Does it promote erroneous ideas concerning the history and heritage of Christianity? Is it blasphemy? Yes. I’m not promoting it, neither is Tim. The fact is, it poses no threat—it’s easier to mistake an apple for a gorilla than it is to think DVC presents any tenable threat to the church that Jesus said would withstand the gates of hell. TPOTC, like I said, is like the sublte lies of Satan—masquerading as Truth and promoting the idolatrous Mass. I pray for my brethren that call themselves Protestant and Reformed—please re-visit church history. See the distinction between Rome and Geneva (so to speak). We should NOT be promoting a movie made by a man who himself said that all Protestants are anathema, because we don’t “belong to the Mother Church.”
We should not be promoting a “Passion play” writ large—OR we should stop calling ourselves Protestant and Reformed. This movie has NO PLACE in the Protestant/Reformed Christian’s life. It is idolatry and is leavened with nothing but Pharisaical heresy.
One last note: since when do Protestants/Reformed Christians defend a practice with an appeal to “how it made me feel?” What about proving our position with Scripture? What about living as people of the Word? What do Protestants have to do with popish movies—pick up the Bible, and put down TPOTC. We are people of the Word, and it ALONE is sufficient to save! The Spirit reminds us of what the Lord said and did, and the Spirit brings the Word to life. Mel Gibson was honest about his position—he is a papist, through and through. This movie was directed from that presupposition. Why the confusion? The Bible is sufficient to bring men to salvation.
On idolatrous imagery, despite the errors of the “early church”, and there were myriad errors (as there continues to be), the Lord commands thus:
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
(Exodus 20:4-6)
False teachers everywhere may look like sheep indeed, whether they are called “Early Church” or “Church Fathers” or “Pope” or “Bishop,” if what they teach differs from the Word of God which Jesus says “cannot be broken,” then they are in error.
May God give you eyes to see, James H
50. Francisco
April 23, 2006
12:11 AM
Hey, want a quick lesson of spanish? “Diablaazul” means “blue devil”. It can also refer to this scenario: had you ever seen a drunkard out of his mind? If you do, then in spanish that person is said he/she is in the “blue devil” mood … for those curious about such odd nickname (to say the least)
Francisco
p.s. btw, this is not an ad-hominem argument against diablaazul. I am just telling ya’ll what her nick means…
51. Tom Smith
April 23, 2006
9:35 AM
What does “co-Mediatrix” mean? Perhaps you were thinking of the term “Mediatrix of All Graces?” Or was it “co-Redemptrix” you were thinking of?
“They (REAL Christians, aka Protestants) were told that Mel Gibson was a brother in Christ, when in fact his Pre-Tridentine Catholicism rejects the faith of Protestants.”
What, exactly, do you mean by the term “pre-Tridentine?” The Council of Trent (in Latin, Concilium Tridentinum, hence “Tridentine”) took place between 1545-1562. I’m thinking you mean “pre-Vatican II.” If this is what you mean, you’ll have to pony up some quotes to back up your assumption that pre-Vatican II Catholicism rejected “the faith of Protestants,” while Catholicism after Vatican II affirmed it.
You’ll find that there has never been a change. The Catholic Church has condemned, and continues to condemn, Protestant errors, while it has in the past affirmed, and continues to affirm, the truths retained by Protestantism.
52. Patrick O'Hannigan
April 23, 2006
10:13 AM
Re: David in #9 and #48: Far from condescending to Tim, I paid him the compliment of engaging his argument. I know that “separated bretheren” is not Reformed terminology— I’d used that phrase in a Catholic sense, and I said so at the time. Me, I don’t typically use the phrase “double atonement,” but I don’t presume to play forum cop when other people do.
Just what is it you think Jesus said to his disciples in the locked room after the resurrection, anyway?
I don’t know whether you learned it from George Orwell or just long practice, but you’re pretty good at the “two-minute hate.”
53. david
April 23, 2006
10:56 AM
Patrick,
Yes, you engaged Tim’s argument. That’s fine.
You wrote: Perhaps your anti-Catholic animus (and sometimes it does seem to be precisely that) has lead you to read more into TPOTC than Gibson intended.
You refer to anti-Catholic animus as something deplorable, when in fact it is part and parcel with the Reformation. Protesting Tim’s anti-Catholic bias is silly, to put it mildly.
As for “the two-minute hate,” all I can do is repeat the words of Psalm 119:104, “Through [God’s] precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” Protestants believe Catholicism is a false way. In the almost 500 years since Luther nailed his theses to Wittenberg’s door, that fact should have sunk in.
54. Dan Hames
April 23, 2006
10:57 AM
“Did the visual representation help you understand the fact that Jesus’ physical sufferings were only the tip of the iceberg? Did they help you understand that the greater suffering was hidden as God turned his back on His Son? This is what no movie can portray. I worry that the truest, deepest sufferings of Jesus were lost in the physical bloodbath.”
Tim, The film communicates nothing of Jesus’ spiritual sufferings, which, as you say, were the greatest suffering He endured.
I guess I may have still left you with the wrong impression that I see this film as additional to the narrative of the gospels- I don’t. I found it helpful and it moved me to praise. I guess it moved me to praise for Jesus’ physical suffering; and as I looked at my Bible and prayed after I watched it, I remembered from the perfect source of the story that Jesus’ Passion was more than physical and that no film could ever protray that.
For what it’s worth, I have a lower view of the film having read your post (every point of which I am in agreement with). I can see how it’s potentially damaging, though I can’t deny its usefulness to me personally when I watched it.
Dan
55. jordan
April 23, 2006
1:31 PM
I’ve been reading Tim and Dan’s exchanges about whether seeing a flawed visual representation of Christ’s physical sufferings can be a postive aid to our faith, or a dangerous addition. I does seem dangerous to look at a visual representation, but… When we read the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s suffering, do we not make a visual image in our minds of what happened, an image which is just as flawed and inadequate as a movie would be?
56. Dan Hames
April 23, 2006
5:45 PM
I think you’re right, Jordan. I guess the question is whether the potential danger of “add-ons” is increased by a piece of film featuring a real person and real places, rather than just a mental picture.
I’m prepared to accept that it may well be. Plus the fact that in our own minds, the image isn’t controlled my Mel Gibson, Hollywood, the Pope etc- hopefully just by the Bible.
Still, as you say, we’re as liable to pervert it or make less of it because of our own sinful hearts.
Any thoughts, Tim?
57. Christian
April 24, 2006
8:11 AM
Great article!
When I watched “The Passion” I had exactly the same thoughts. I understand that you will always “pad” your plot if you make a movie but I also felt that th plot was padded in a very specific way. Although you can always argue that a loving mother might have behaved like Mary does in the movie, there’s an obvious emphasis on her that can not be considered the only possible way to pad the plot. I do think that God has used that movie and will continue using it. However, he might even use the “Da Vinci Code”. He’s greater than we’d ever think and if lies could stop him, there would be no Christians left.
58. James H
April 24, 2006
9:25 AM
In response to the query “don’t we make images in our minds reading the Bible”—the image-making (be it movies, statues, pictures, etc.) that is prohibited by God’s Word (the second commandment) is of any likeness of anything in heaven, earth, or the waters below. It is an image not of our minds, but an image that is actually tooled in some way. Tangible, in other words. To speak with all this conjecture and speculation apart from the word and to rely on our imaginations (please note the word “imagination” has the word “image” in it…) is to stray from the rule of our faith: the Bible alone. Note what God forbids in the 2nd commandment: to not make a likeness/ image of anything that exists. This must be restricted to worship, as the context of the first commandment is speaking to who/what we worship.
To sum: God forbade us to make images of any sort. If it’s in your mind, you haven’t made it. Unlike God, we don’t make anything simply by thinking it—only the Realists thought such a thing. That is a divine attribute alone. For us to make something, our hands must tool it into existence (be it a keyboard or a chisel or a camera).
James H
59. James H
April 24, 2006
9:44 AM
I forgot to say this, please excuse me for posting back-to-back, but “Christian” commented in #57 above that “I do think that God has used [TPOTC] movie, and will continue to use it…”
To that, I would say “Amen!”
God will use that movie and continue to use it to point to the error of referring to a movie to communicate His truth vs. referring to His Word to communicate His truth. God will use that movie to underscore the fact that the movie is irrelevant— His people are called to live by the Word, not the theater. We aren’t called to “hand out DVD’s” or movied tickets—we’re called to testify to the Truth, that is, the Scriptures. Not some idolatrous movie!
Paul didn’t go around and tell Timothy and Titus and Luke, etc., to “find men who can act, and find men who look like Jesus so that they can play the lead role in a Passion play, so we can act out for those who didn’t witness it those events of which we speak.” This is absurd, people!!!
They had theater, really large theaters, and plays, and the arts. They had statues, pictures, paintings— but we NEVER read Paul saying, “Have Mark sent to me with that box of Jesus statues, oh! and the script I’ve been writing—is it edited yet? We want next year’s ‘Passion Play’ to be a hit. Set up a great drama team where ever you have a big Metropolitan church—these Greeks and Romans love theater, and boy, we don’t want to bore them with ‘the Word.’ Let’s be ‘relevant.’”
Nope, not once! Yet, all our ways seem right to us, and we don’t question the irreverent and irrelevant and erroneous ways we choose to communicate the message—we don’t have to “re-package” God’s message to “make it better” than it already is! God’s word is what Paul described as useful for correction, rebuke, instruction, etc. It wasn’t as if they didn’t “have” plays back then, or actors, or the stage—but they did have “the foolishness of preaching.”
Trouble is, it was the world that thought that preaching was “foolish”—NOT the CHURCH! Nowadays, it seems as if the very church thinks it’s foolish to “merely” preach! That’s not at all our Christian heritage, not according the God’s Word. The Bible is sufficient, it is perfect, it is all we need along with the omnipotent Spirit. Why entertain ideas that presuppose that the Bible is NOT sufficient? Why entertain images of Jesus, when the LAW forbids it?
“Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.” God defines how we are to love Him, and we are NOT to “love Him” with images made of His Son. NEVER has God said, “make images of Me— I am 5 feet tall, have a beard and blue eyes.” It is forbidden.
SO….
I guess God IS using that movie—I’ve been reading the Word a LOT lately.
May God give us repentance and wisdom, James H
60. James Hakim
April 24, 2006
10:02 AM
James H, nice name and initial. I would suggest that we stay away as much as possible from image-making in our minds as well. Thorny issue, but there are better things with which to fill our minds when contemplating the cross than pictures.
cf. this section from my earlier post: If I am a believer, and I see it, how can I respond, except to worship? Even just thinking about Christ drinking the cup of wrath for all who would believe in Him… not just trying to make salvation possible, but actually securing it… a sacrifice without which God could not even have justly sent His Spirit to make me alive… these things literally move me almost to tears, just commenting on a blog! Now, what if I had a worship response like that, and instead of my mind being filled with the glory of God’s attributes and works, especially in the accomplishing and application of redemption… it was filled with
an image
I think this applies even to making them in our minds.
Your point was spot-on that God has given us the images that we may have (the Supper for the accomplishing of redemption and Baptism for its application).
61. diablaazul
April 24, 2006
10:16 PM
Re: my “odd” alias, Francisco is indeed right to say that it means ‘blue devil’ in Spanish. The explanation for it is simple - I graduated from Duke.
62. pilgrim
April 24, 2006
10:19 PM
Christian, you posted- “I do think that God has used that movie and will continue using it. However, he might even use the “Da Vinci Code”. He’s greater than we’d ever think and if lies could stop him, there would be no Christians left.”
God can and does use all sorts of thingds to accomplish His will, and in fact He works all things to the good, for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28)-
BUT—does that mean we should? Does that excuse disobedience or lack of discernment?
Of course not.
God uses all sorts of means—but we are not God. If God wants to use a movie-He can & will—-but that doesn’t mean we can or should use a movie without being discernign about it.
63. diablaazul
April 24, 2006
10:35 PM
James H -
If the God forbids us from using images of any sort, why was did Ark of the Covenant, a symbol of God’s intimate and unique relationship with Israel, bear the likenesses of two seraphim on its cover?
Also, my statement that your perspective on the use of images is odd (which it absolutely is, from the perspective of the Early Church; this much is clear from the early church councils) is hardly tantamount to “persecution”, and it’s certainly not pharasaical. It’s just a simple statement of fact. Your viewpoint simply does not coincide with the historical perspective of the Church, both in the East and the West.
In any event, I join you in your prayer that my eyes will be opened to God’s truth. We are all in constant need of having our eyes opened to God, aren’t we? I pray the same for you.
David -
I understand that you don’t consider Catholics (or, I presume Eastern Orthodox) to be your brethren, separated or not. However, Catholics believe that Protestants are indeed our brethren in Christ, though we are not perfectly united to one another. We have just as much right to refer to our relationship as that of “separated brethren” as you do to malign the Catholic Church as apostate and the mass as idolatrous.
The rhetoric I read here always leaves me wondering: if both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy must be dismissed as idolatrous and pharaisical, where did the Church Christ founded disappear to for almost 1500 years? Oh, forget I asked.
64. pilgrim
April 24, 2006
11:02 PM
It didn’t go anywhere—there have always been those who believed the Gospel—and they didn’t have to belong to or flow from some institution.
Plus much of what the Roman Catholics claim as their own is not really RCism. The RCC church is not as ancient as it claims.
But forget I answered—because you probably don’t believe that anyway.
65. James H
April 25, 2006
9:36 AM
Blue Devil—
Ok. The name makes sense. BUT…”devil”?
On a serious note, you are wonderful for repeating the point I keep trying to make.
The point is this:
You keep pointing to the “authority” of the “historical church”—which authority stands or falls on the Word of God alone. The creating of images that God has NOT sanctioned (like the specifically mandated Ark of the Covenant, etc.) is forbidden.
Tell me, which church council or teaching can trump the unassailable Scriptures? Which view from man’s tradition can silence the writings of the Holy Spirit? You have yet to show me where from Scripture (damnable practices from idolatrous history is meaningless—they only show the fallibility of the church, not the verity of it) we are given the “thumbs up” to make images of any sort (please compare apples to apples here: has God told us from the Bible to make “passion plays” or to “preach the Word”?).
But, I must thank you at bottom. I am certain that you will yet again prove my point by pointing to history.
As to your query “where did the church go” in the pre-Reformation era:
God knows his own. I have yet to say that all Roman Catholics are and have been damned to hell. I, after all, was born into that damnable “church”. There has always been a remnant, friend. God knows and preserves His people regardless of the faulty churches they attend (and so you know: just being “Reformed” doesn’t mean one is “saved”—there are “Esaus” all about, just as Christ promised).
Friend, please turn your attention to Matthew 23, and note the tone of our Lord Jesus. He doles out 7 woes to those who teach men’s traditions, trying to trump or twist the Word and traditions (properly exegeted from the Bible) taught by God.
If you point to Scripture and show me where images in worship are for us today (the building of the Temple and Tabernacle was a one-time event in history, not to be repeated and sanctioned by the Word of God directly given—the key difference you are lacking in your arguments), I will be silent.
Praying for you to see the real glory of Christ, (Not made by human hands) James H or “Viking Verde” (I don’t know the Spanish for “Viking”—but my mascot at the HS was a green Viking…) ;)
66. George Owen
April 25, 2006
12:29 PM
Pre-Tridentine brand of Catholicism? Wow, aren’t we informed. I think you’ll find Gibson’s sect rejects the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
Pre-Tridentine would mean rejecting teaching of the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Catholic Church’s conciliar response to the Protestant Reformation. Why don’t you leave off attacking the Catholic Church. You are simply peddling ignorance.
67. david
April 25, 2006
3:08 PM
Blue Devil, all I’m saying is, don’t come to a protestant blog and protest our protestantism. It’s like showing up at the dog track and demanding that everyone meow.
The rhetoric I read here always leaves me wondering: if both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy must be dismissed as idolatrous and pharaisical, where did the Church Christ founded disappear to for almost 1500 years? Oh, forget I asked.
Thanks, I will, since that question has been answered myriad times over the last 500 years.
68. diablaazul
April 25, 2006
6:47 PM
David,
You continue to misunderstand. There’s a difference between being faithful to one’s Protestant beliefs and getting one’s facts wrong, or twisting the facts to fit a preconceived opinion. When Catholics are at the receiving end of the latter sort of behavior, it is rightly described as indicative of “anti-Catholic animus”, whether the person in question is Protestant or not.
James H - Sola scriptura is your standard, not mine, so I think the burden is on you, not me, to explain and defend it. Perhaps you could point to me where the use of guitars in worship, or projectors, or pianos is sanctioned in Scripture … ? Or, maybe you could explain to me why most women no longer cover their heads in churches, despite the fact that Scripture seems to command it? Better yet, I would love it if you could point me to Bible verses that tell us which books should be included in the Christian canon and which shouldn’t.
69. James H
April 25, 2006
11:34 PM
Devil (blue, in fact):
I have to say I can’t get off the name thing! It tickles me and also makes me scratch my head…You’re on a Christian site and pick that name. Admit it, it’s odd, right?
Enough. (But it does make me laugh!)
Ok. Now you have got me rather confused…are you trying to use a “reducto ad absurdum” argument here, by adopting my premise of “Sola Scriptura”—or are you confused? On the one hand, you say you don’t adopt the doctrine of SS. On the other hand, you are trying to attack my argument from a SS point of view. I will assume you are taking the reducto route…I hope, however, that you will adopt the Christ-given doctrine of “living on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,” as one cannot live on bread alone. Well, that’s was Jesus told the (not blue) Devil…
I think another thread is required to answer your query. Remember the issue here: the inherent dangers, if any, of TPOTC. At least, “evangelical hypocrisy” with TPOTC at its focus. Since you asked, however…
The canon of Scripture (believe it or not) is “self-attesting.” The authority of the Scripture rests on its authorship: God the Holy Spirit. See: Ps. 119, 2 Tim 3:16-17. Scripture is God-breathed. Any respectable concordance will produce far more Scripture on this issue. For the church to “decide” what was canonical or not is simply a view that the church at the time did not itself admit. This doctrine has been fabricated anachronistically from a power-hungry medeival RC “church.” (I am about to teach my 5 kids and wife from the Bible—it’s family Bible time at our house and I’m rushing, else I’d pour through my Church History notes from Seminary to quote the source for the claim—forgive the lack here).
The forms of worship that you accuse me of subscribing to (using guitars, pianos, etc.)—is not my argument to make. I don’t personally think modern worship forms are very acceptable, from a “Regulative Principle” standpoint, though there are directions from the Psalms (forgetting which here, I’m rushing, my daughters are almost done with dishes…) to use the lyre, harp, horns, etc. Instruments, believe it or not, are biblically sanctioned (I’ll come on later and cite the Psalm). Modern worship, however, is another beast altogether. Again, you won’t find me in such a church, so I don’t need to make the case here.
As for head coverings: the interpretation I subscribe to is that Paul in that context defines the covering as hair. Although, I have been in a number of churches that have the women using such coverings. I wouldn’t condemn either interpretation.
Friend, I have a question. How can you attend a church that places ultimate authority in the church in the hands of fallible men? How can papal decrees throughout the Mid-Ages contradict one another and yet “ex cathedral” statements are equal in authority to Scripture?
Honestly, if the authority of upon which we stand is of human origin, as in the RC, then there is no certainty except uncertainty. The Word, and the Word alone is our rule of faith. Psalms 1 describes the righteous as he who “meditates on the law” of God—not the traditions of man. Matthew 23 condemns the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and teachers of the synagogue, and as a former Catholic I read that chapter and saw the errors of Rome all over again. Jesus does not take the high view of traditions taught by men when they do not submit to the authority of God’s revealed Word.
Alas, you have bigger fish to fry here, friend. Only the Truth will set you free, and that is found in the Bible alone. The Holy Spirit points to the Word, as spoken and taught by Jesus. Jesus depended on the OT for His ministry—thus showing the sanction and verity of the OT. Where are Jesus’ words? The NT. Scripture is self-attesting. Read John 14 and 16—Jesus sends the Spirit to remind us of the words He spoke. The Spirit illuminates and brings to mind the Scripture.
It’s like this: You wake up one day and find 20 dollars in your jeans pocket. You forgot it was left there last week before you washed the jeans. Now, you “discover” the truth—you have 20 bucks. Did you “decide” that it was true, or did you merely discover the truth of the matter? Such an analogy is pitiful and I must end my post with it—in the hopes you see how a Christian, born again by the Spirit of God, views the Bible. The truth of the Canon was discovered—it is self-attesting, relying on the authority of its Author. The church is a clumsy whore at times, and we aren’t called to rest our souls in the church—we are called to rest our souls in Christ, in the Word.
Alright!
Bible time!!
James H
70. Collin Brendemuehl
June 13, 2006
1:55 PM
Certainly most evangelicals, with an almost complete lack of knowledge about R.C. theology and history, missed the source for Mel Gibson’s work.
Even with that, there was enough truth to make the content useful for clarifying the gospel. It wasn’t perfect by any means, but useful.
Dan Brown, on the other hand, in Angels and Demons, shows nothing but contempt for evangelicals. To respond to his errors is not at all inconsistent.
The real problem is not Brown’s novel. It’s that I’ve met people who actually believe that he’s telling the truth. Sad, but more true than people imagine.
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com