Book Review - What You Need To Know About TPotC
While I read hundreds of articles about The Passion of the Christ before and after it was released, What You Need To Know About The Passion of the Christ is the first full-length book I have read on the topic. Ian Brown, author and pastor of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster (Ireland) has written this book to address three serious issues he has with the movie – its making, message and meaning. Drawing from numerous sources, he weaves together a fair and logical rebuttal against the film.
The first chapter is dedicated to the strife surrounding the film. He addresses those critics who charged that the movie was anti-Semitic and shows that to take issue with the Biblical account of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion is to take issue with God. He believes the charges of anti-Semitism are nothing more than a red herring that steals attention from the more important issues regarding the movie. A second source of controversy surrounding the film was its level of brutal violence. Brown believes that God purposely chose to avoid portraying Christ’s death in graphic detail, lest Jesus’ physical suffering draw us away from the true meaning of the cross. He questions what right Mel Gibson has to focus so heavily on pain and brutality.
The second chapter speaks about the sources for the movie, showing that Gibson’s interpretation of the events of Christ’s last hours are muddied by his Catholic beliefs. His version of the events draws significantly from Catholic theology and tradition, so that the movie becomes little more than an “animated crucifix.” Even Catholics have been calling the movie a “two-hour catechism” and “a commercial for Catholicism.” He also takes the position that this representation of Jesus violates the second commandment which forbids us to make any image of God.
Chapter three goes into significant detail to show that the movie is Catholic through-and-through. He shows that the movie follows the Stations of the Cross and that many of the additions and subtractions made by Gibson were made specifically to make it fit better with Catholic beliefs. A movie that is so heavily Catholic must necessarily be anti-Protestant.
The fourth chapter is brief and speaks about the overwhelming Protestant support for this movie. Brown believes that pastors who encouraged their congregations to see the movie have failed in their responsibilities before God. “Instead of putting the trumpet to their lips and sounding an alarm, many evangelical leaders, lulled to sleep by the compromising spirit of this age, are clapping their hands and whistling in support of Mel Gibson’s Passion.”
The final chapter speaks about the perceived success of the movie. Brown shows that the movie can not be a successful tool for evangelism as it fails to present the gospel. There are too many additions and far too many subtractions from the gospel message. He says “Does revival spring from error, compromise and false gospels? The answer of history is a resounding “No!” Based on experience, it seems a safe prediction that there will be a spasm of emotion as a result of The Passion of the Christ. There will be a wave of false converts. There will also be a deepening of the ecumenical movement.”
I applaud Mr. Brown for writing this book, despite knowing it will likely serve to alienate him from many other believers. He has taken an informed and Biblical stand on an issue that is of utmost importance. While the author relies heavily on Internet sources, many of which I had already read, he has also found an abundance of sources that were new to me. Whether you agree or disagree with his conclusions, you certainly cannot fault the thoroughness of his research. If you are committed to the traditional foundations of Protestantism, I see little reason to believe you could disagree with his conclusions.
Comments (19) »
1. JD Mays
May 22, 2004
9:57 PM
I haven’t read this book so I can’t get too carried away with critical comments. Two points of contention that I have based on your representation of the book are; that it can’t be effective for evangelism b/c it doesn’t present the gospel and that errors in the movie will spawn a wave of false converts. The movie doesn’t present the four spiritual laws but I don’t think it’s a big stretch of the imagination to say that it would certainly cause unbelievers to have questions. Questions which could (and have) prompted these people to take a deeper look which subsequently resulted in their conversion. The movie may be flawed by an overdose of catholicism and other faults but since when is any tool for evangelism perfect? The movie simply serves as a messenger and if all messengers were expected to be perfect I guess there would be no such thing as Christianity.
I don’t know what the motivation would be for writing such a book, however, it seems that one of it’s purposes is NOT to lead people to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The so-called dangers warned about don’t seem all that dangerous. (at least from what you’ve written)
I submit that there’s a greater danger from some mainline denominations and others who have let liberalism run amok among their clergy. They themselves have failed to take the Bible literally and they feel antagonistic toward those who do. -jdm.
2. dopderbeck
May 24, 2004
10:48 AM
“A movie that is so heavily Catholic must necessarily be anti-Protestant.” What? This is hardly a logical syllogism. There may be things in the film we protestants can critique as “Roman Catholic” rather than Biblical, but that doesn’t necessarily render the whole film “anti-protestant.” And the fact that some things in the film aren’t perfect is hardly a reason to toss out the baby with the bathwater. I saw the film and was deeply moved by it, yet I was able, as a reasonably well educated protestant, to discern the places where its Catholicity overwhelmed its accuracy. Why can’t we learn to give discerning critiques rather than “all or nothing” condemnations?
3. Pam
May 25, 2004
12:30 PM
“The so-called dangers warned about don’t seem all that dangerous.”
I’m sorry to say that I disagree with this statement. At the risk of sounding like a fanatic, I must say that I believe every word of the Bible will be literally fulfilled. If so, we are dangerously close to a ‘unity’ such as the world has never known. Instead of the unity of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, it will be a unity of the spirit of antichrist and the great apostasy that is coming. Anyone who can read the book of Revelation and not see the connection between the Catholic church and the end-time apostasy is blind. May God remove the blinders before it’s too late. I’m afraid of the attitude of “who cares if it’s different from the Bible.” We’d better go back to it and hide it in our hearts because it will be fulfilled.
By the way, I love the Catholics. Don’t send hate-mail accusing me of hate. Just last week I watched a Catholic mass on TV and I wept as I watched all those people bow down to this system of religion. It made me so thankful for my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and for the once-great nation who broke away from this bondage. Also, we are indebted to the courageous men who burned at the stake to bring us a Bible we can understand, although it lies full of dust in so many of our homes.
4. Tim Challies
May 25, 2004
1:12 PM
Pam - Great comments!
You do, indeed, sound like a fanatic to most modern Protestant ears, I am sure, but if you hold Biblical views you will just have to get used to it!
Though I grieve for “all those people bow down to this system of religion” I also grieve for the Protestant world that accepts such things as merely another equally-correct alternative. Black and white have faded into grey…
5. Pam
May 25, 2004
3:37 PM
And the “grey” area is becoming a powerful blend with so many charismatics following men like Benny Hinn who, without apology, claims to be a Catholic at heart. Anyone who is informed as to the happenings in the “Revival” movements, can see the blending, with Benny claiming TBN will be like a tube connected to heaven, all the gold dust appearances, gold teeth, and the image he claims appeared on the wall in his church. As his mouth moved, the image on the wall moved until gradually the two came together. This chillingly reminds me of an image that will be set up by the antichrist.
6. dopderbeck
May 25, 2004
4:52 PM
“Anyone who can read the book of Revelation and not see the connection between the Catholic church and the end-time apostasy is blind.” Wow! So, on the one hand, it’s wrong to dramatize the crucifiction in a way that isn’t a verbatim transcript from the gospels, yet, on the other hand, it is ok to assert confidently that Revelation refers to the Catholic Church (and presumably that the antichrist referred to in Revelation is the Pope), even though no such assertions are expressly made in the text.
Pam, you are doing exactly the same thing you condemn Mel Gibson for doing, and worse. You are going beyond the Biblical text and making assumptions that may or may not be accurate — which is what you accuse Gibson of doing — and then, worse yet, you state that anyone who doesn’t accept your extra-Biblical assumptions is “blind.”
Tim, I don’t accept Catholicism as an “equally correct alternative.” However, I also don’t indulge the knee-jerk reaction of assuming that anthing or anyone associated with Catholicism is completely “anti-Protestant.” Take that assumption all the way back in church history and you’ll have to abandon the definition of the scriptural canon, a full theology of the trinity, and much more.
7.
May 25, 2004
6:26 PM
Dopderbeck - Catholic doctrine stands in opposition to, not in harmony with, Protestant theology. They share some common ground, but as a system of beliefs they go opposite directions right from the start. One begins with works and the other with grace. From there the differences just grow.
8. Pam
May 25, 2004
10:40 PM
First of all, I don’t “condemn” Mel Gibson or anyone else. If we are without Christ, we are condemned.
Jesus said many times, “He that hath ears to hear let him hear.” By that, I assume that with the help of the Holy Spirit, we are commanded to reasonably understand the Scriptures. I do not say that the “Mother of Harlots” is the Catholic church exclusively, nor do I know whether or not the Pope is the antichrist. You have made more assumptions than I have.
Until recently, I always thought of the idolatry in the O.T. to be for primitive people in a primitive culture, something so past our education that I couldn’t even relate to it. How could anyone worship gold or brass? But I see the statues, the images, the apparitions, that really things are not different today. And with a system so corrupt that you’d have to have your head in the sand to not see it. If we only knew how many little children have been molested behind those doors! And when the priests get caught, they just move them to another town. Don’t expect me to walk softly around this issue. It’s full of filth and abominations. And I’m not making assumptions; read your paper. What’s more, read your history books.
9. dopderbeck
May 26, 2004
9:24 AM
Pam, what then exactly are you saying about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the prophecies of Revelation? Where is your Biblical support for the supposed “connection” that we would have to be “blind” to miss? What do the child molestation scandals have to do with the book of Revelation? It seems now that there’s no real meat to your original post; it’s just an ad hominem attack, and you’ve now wandered way off the farm.
To the anonymous poster: I never claimed Catholic doctrine is in “harmony” with “Protestant theology.” But, since you’ve raised it, the simplistic “works vs. grace” formulation is just wrong. Take a look at the Nicene Creed, as just one example, and you’ll see that much of what we call “Protestant” theology started out “Catholic.” (And Pam, thanks for the reference to the “history books.” As the Nicene Creed elegantly demonstrates, you can’t have a Protestant theology without acknowledging a debt to the church fathers, who were Catholic, and to the institutional mechanisms of the Catholic Chruch that helped formalize some of these key doctrines.)
Now, don’t get me wrong — the theologies do differ materially on some crucial points. I affirm the “solas” of the Reformation, and therefore I can’t accept many Catholic doctrines, in particular the Catholic views of ecclesiology and justification. The point isn’t to minimize those differences. The point is that “Catholic” is not automatically equal to “bad” or even “anti-Protestant.”
10. Pam
May 26, 2004
10:59 AM
I make it a rule to not argue about religion, it gets people nowhere. But I will defend my very firm position on this issue. Has anyone ever gone to Mexico and witnessed the poverty-stricken people give all they have so the “church” will pray their loved one out of purgatory? A friend of mine wanted a divorce so she could marry her childhood sweetheart and with her application for an anullment, she had to give a financial statement. This was so the “church” could access the correct charge for this service so her new marriage could be sanctioned by the “church” and thereby her soul was safe. I know a 60-year alcoholic who after much councelling revealed he had been molested by a priest while going to Catholic school as a child. In a stupor, he molested his own daughter and she now has nothing to do with him. He’s a wasted and pathetic man!
I know this isn’t the Bible, but I only want to point out the corruption behind the whole system. No other religious dynasty in the world can compare to the mass wealth it has acquired through these practices (Rev. 17:4), the seven mountains (vs 9), the perversions (vs. 5).
I hold to my original comment that if you can’t see it, you must be blind. If common sense doesn’t tell you, then go back to Genesis and study about the time of Nimrod. It takes only a little “homework” to research the history of Mystery Babylon and the similarities to today’s system is only more proof. Read Alexander Hislop’s ‘The Two Babylons’ for the undeniable historical evidence. What Satan tried to accomplish in Nimrod’s day is being fulfilled before our eyes. God intervened then because he had not yet accomplished our salvation in sending Jesus, but according to the Bible, he won’t stop it this time. It will come to its fulness and then be judged and destroyed. He has called us to come out from it!
The simple Gospel is that Jesus has become our door to heaven, His body and His blood is God’s covenent with me through my simple faith in His death and resurrection. The Catholic church has built a powerfully corrupt system that sets itself in the way of that passage. (I would call that antichrist.) And I pray God will remove the blinders that is glazing the eyes of so many and let us see Jesus ‘by faith’ not with our eyes on a movie screen.
11. dopderbeck
May 26, 2004
12:40 PM
Pam, thank you for citing Hislop, it reveals where you are coming from. I wish you had cited it sooner. Hislop was a fraud, and his theory that the Catholic Church is a continuation of Babylonian mystery religion has been thoroughly debunked. See, e.g., here, here, here.
12. dopderbeck
May 26, 2004
12:42 PM
Pam, thank you for citing Hislop, it reveals where you are coming from. I wish you had cited it sooner. Hislop was a fraud, and his theory that the Catholic Church is a continuation of Babylonian mystery religion has been thoroughly debunked. See, e.g., here, here, here.
13.
May 26, 2004
3:56 PM
Tim,
Is Catholicism a bad thing?
14. Tim Challies
May 26, 2004
4:07 PM
A cryptic, anonymous question!
Yes, I believe Catholicism is a bad thing. Catholicism, as a system of beliefs, stands in opposition to Protestantism. Catholic theology is absolutely incompatible with Protestant theology. One (properly) emphasizes a gospel of grace while the other (improperly) emphasizes a gospel of works. The long and the short of it is that the Catholic Church preaches a false gospel.
15. dopderbeck
May 26, 2004
4:54 PM
I’m beating a dead horse, but I think that’s a simplistic answer to a simplistic question. In the contemporary context alone, there are many areas of social thought in which Catholics have made invaluable contributions to the intellectual life of the church, including, in my own discipline for example, natural law theory. Do we need to be clear about important doctrinal differences? Yes. Is that grounds for saying “us good, them bad”? No.
16. Pam
May 26, 2004
4:58 PM
CRI has a famous reputation for having a friendship with Catholicism, so I would question anything they said on the matter. Regardless, I don’t question the Bible and it has plenty to say against idolatry, worshipping the queen of heaven, vain repetitions; it’s all there for those who have “ears to hear.” The truth will stand. Until then, I rest in His grace through His covenant with me.
17.
May 26, 2004
8:16 PM
We owe no debt to the so-called church fathers. My church fathers were Peter, James, John, Jude, Paul, etc. Most of church history is a shame and embarrassment, certainly nothing to herald as an example today.
18. dopderbeck
May 26, 2004
9:20 PM
We owe no debt to the so-called church fathers? Anonyomous, let me guess — whatever your church tradition is, it’s the only “true” or “pure” tradition to come down through the millenia unadulterated from the Apostles? (Except of course for those little things you borrowed from the church fathers, like the canon of scripture and clear statements of doctrines such as the nature of Christ and the Trinity; but if you can ignore those things, maybe they’ll go away).
And since most of church history is an embarrassment, I suppose you’re jettisoning Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers as well? Maybe I should thank you for clarifying the meaning of justification and predestination as well then? And gosh, I guess I was wrong in believing that the Holy Spirit’s work throughout history is a powerful evidence for the genuineness of the Christian faith? I suppose I really should be ashamed of my faith instead? What arrogant nonsense.
Pam, you’re just wrong about CRI. Look at their website, it demonstrates a firm but well-balanced critique of Roman Catholic doctrines.
19. Pam
May 27, 2004
12:21 AM
I checked out the CRI webpage. I have heard Hank say very confusing things in favor of Catholicism. Then I began researching and found that others had the same complaints against him. I can’t understand his connection with them, although I’m glad to see he has a somewhat official stand against Catholic doctrines. I read his book, Counterfeit Revival which was, in my opinion, well balanced and informative. As far as Hislop, I think your statement was perhaps a little strong. To be honest, I have never read the book, I’ve only heard Pastor Chuck Smith refer to it and recommend it. But other than the webpage you cited and perhaps one other, it seems to be still held in high esteem. So I would say that your statement is still left up to debate, perhaps by someone who unlike myself, has read the book, or has the capacity and resources to research 5 or 6 thousand years ago. You would probably have the same opinion about Dave Hunt’s, A Woman Rides the Beast, for which I have read.
Regardless, just in watching the Catholic channel for one hour last week (at someone else’s house, I don’t have a TV), I could see so many errors of idolatry. They showed clips of the Pope seated with a huge statue of Jesus behind him and the filming was done to create the effect that the Pope was Jesus speaking. But that’s no secret, that’s what they believe and teach. I can’t understand why people can’t see how clear the Bible is about even having graven images. But the Catholic church thrives around them. Crucifixes, Marys, babies…
I could go on and on but I’m going on vacation and I’m exhausted. With Regards
Post Your Comment Here »