My Concerns With The Passion of the Christ
The Passion of the Christ goes against everything I believe in. Or more accurately, it goes against everything I was raised to believe in. In the tradition I was raised (Canadian Reformed Church) movies were generally regarded as a sinful form of entertainment. Going to a theatre was to bring oneself into the “playground of the ungodly.” Portraying Christ in any way, even in a picture in a child’s story Bible was considered wrong. And of course Catholicism and Ecumenicism were wrong. It seems to me that The Passion of the Christ contains all of those elements.
Movies are bad. I occasionally go to the movies and enjoy doing so. I try to be discerning with what I watch, but do not regard movies as a medium as evil. Similarly I do not consider theatres a bad place to go. So this does not concern me much. A movie with a Christian theme and message can be edifying.
Portraying Christ is wrong. I am undecided about this. Though I do find it very difficult to watch someone portray Jesus, I do understand that there can be value in this and that the Bible does not seem to specifically say it is wrong. Provided that He is portrayed accurately and respectfully I think I can live with this.
Catholicism is wrong. I believe strongly that Catholicism represents a false gospel – a gospel that conflicts with the “5 solas” that Protestantism traditionally holds so dear and that many Protestants died defending. Mel Gibson is Catholic and holds to Catholic teachings and doctrine. During filming a priest attended the location every morning to hold mass and celebrate the Eucharist. There is no doubt that Gibson is making this movie as an expression of his beliefs. It is a necessary conclusion, then, that his beliefs could come into conflict with Protestant beliefs.
Despite that, the Catholic view of the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life is based on the same texts as the Protestant view. If the movie holds very closely to the account as presented in the gospels, there is little reason to think it will showcase Catholic teachings. If the Biblical account is followed with accuracy, it should not matter much whether the movie-maker is Protestant, Catholic or any other religion. The prominent concern I have in this regard is how they present and portray Mary. In the gospel account she receives very little attention and plays only a small role. In this regard a reviewer has said “It truly is a great depiction of the passion of Christ with the theological emphasis on Mary’s role in the Church, the wickedness of Satan, and the Eucharist in connection with the crucifixion itself.” Reviews that include such information do little to increase my confidence. It is possible, of course, that the reviewer is interpreting what he has seen through his theological presuppositions and that a Protestant viewer would see things far differently. Still, it seems obvious that this movie will do nothing to show where Catholic doctrine is wrong and Protestant doctrine is right.
Ecumenicism is wrong. I take a strong stand against Catholicism, not because I dislike Catholics, but because to ally Protestantism and Catholicism is to ally ourselves with a false gospel and to deny the principles that led to the Reformation. This movie has already crossed denominational boundaries. The Passion Outreach site lists quotes from many church leaders, all of whom endorse this movie. The list begins with Protestants such as Billy Graham, Rick Warren and James Dobson, but then turns to Catholic Archbishops and professors. Interestingly, the bulk of the Protestants listed have in the past made it obvious that they lean towards ecumenicism. I wonder if they showed the movie to Reformed Christians like MacArthur, Sproul and Piper. I wonder what their view of it would be.
Probably my greatest concern is that there is no distinction made between denominations. If this movie is to become the outreach opportunity that many are saying it will be, it seems there is likely to be as many people being evangelized by Catholics and Protestants. Even more alarming is that no one seems to care.
I am not ashamed to say that this movie makes me nervous. I see the potential for this to be a wonderful opportunity for evangelism. There is little doubt that many people will see this movie and be stirred by it. They will be stirred emotionally and perhaps spiritually. Is it not the job of the church to reach out to these people and to provide them answers to the questions they are sure to have? Or is this just another example of Christian pragmatism where we feel that the end justifies the means? Could it be that we care less about what is Biblical than what brings results? I continue to have more questions than answers at the moment.
UPDATE: You can read my review of the movie here.
Comments (36) »
1. Ochuk
January 23, 2004
3:35 PM
I don’t know Tim… I don’t think any denomination has a monopoly on Christ’s last 12 hours.
2. Tim
January 23, 2004
3:44 PM
I would not say a certain denomination has a monopoly either. But what I would say is that one “tradition” within Christendom has a more correct view (Protestant vs Catholic is not a denomination difference). The Protestant view of Christ and His sacrifice is more correct than the Catholic view. Protestants teach the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice while the Catholic Church does not. Catholicism also has theology about Mary and Peter based on this time period.
3. Jeremy
January 23, 2004
6:43 PM
I’m not sure, Tim. Like you said in the post, Catholicism and Protestantism are both based on the same texts. And Catholicism has historical priority (not that this necessarily means much). I think Mel has good intentions, and I think the movie will be done well, but I also think Hollywood will be the text that drives this movie.
4. Tim
January 23, 2004
6:52 PM
I’d be interested in knowing what you mean by “Hollywood will be the text that drives this movie.”
My impression is that the movie will be VERY well made, will be quite accurate to the gospel accounts and will also portray some of Gibson’s Catholic bias. But that is really just guesswork for the time-being. And whether or not his bias is just barely evident or if it is blatant also remains to be seen.
5. Jeremy
January 23, 2004
7:13 PM
I didn’t mean to imply it won’t be faithful to the texts. I just meant that you don’t make a movie if you don’t think it will be commercially viable. What I’m really impressed with, though, is that the movie utilizes English only in subtitles—everything else is spoken in Aramaic, etc.
6. lori
January 29, 2004
7:23 AM
I believe that if Jesus is presented to people, that His message of love and hope will change their lives. That is the most important aspect of this movie. The movie is here, it WILL be released, and we have a great opportunity for Jesus’ love to be shown to humanity in a more mainstream version than ever before. I trust that the timing is God’s, and I want to do my part to help in the results. The most important thing is that people will be led to Christ through this movie, and their eternal destiny will be changed forever.
7. Doug
January 31, 2004
1:20 PM
Amen, Lori….Lets for once as a Christian community look at what God see’s and whats important in His eyes rather than on petty and sometimes inconsequential differences. Non believers will only hear our ngative banter if we don’t presesent a united front(this is a battle). If that stand was good enough for Apostle Paul(i.e. rejoice the gospel is being preached)its good enough for me. P.S. It sounds like all these comments are coming from those(as usual)who have not seen it yet. Well all my pastors have and many others in our city I know as integral men & women of God, their stand is Mel Gibson could be likened to the one who thru Jonah out of the boat to go to Ninevah. Its a sad state when God uses those who are not His to confront those who are. I guarntee you have NEVER seen anything like this and you won’t be able to look on the crucifiction the same again.
8. Tim
January 31, 2004
2:24 PM
There are some good comments here.
I have little doubt that God is going to use this movie. But I want to seperate what God can and will do from what is right and wrong. God can use bad things to do good…but that doesn’t make the bad right (if that makes sense). So though I am not ready to say that this is a bad movie, I do want to examine it thoroughly. I abhor pragmatism (judging something by results rather than by God’s standards) and I think everything should be examined in the light of the Bible before we approve of it.
In short, saying “I guarantee you have NEVER seen anything like this and you won’t be able to look on the crucifiction the same again” and “The most important thing is that people will be led to Christ through this movie, and their eternal destiny will be changed forever” put more emphasis on the results than the rightness or wrongness of the movie. The most important thing is that we do God’s will, not that we see results from what we do. I’d rather do God’s will and see no results than go outside of His will and see wild results.
9. Christine
February 11, 2004
9:36 AM
I agree with Tim. This movies makes me uncomfortable too—for many reasons. Our job, as believers, is to “proclaim Him”. The results or solely up to God. J. I. Packer warn us to be careful that we do not define evangelism as “an effect achieved in the lives of others, which amounts to saying that the essence of evangelizing is producing converts.” He has alot to say to us in his powerful work titled, “Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God”. I think today more than ever we need to “rediscover” the gospel of grace—then we will realize that we do not need any other “stadegy” to reach the lost—simply proclaim Christ.
But I applaud Mel Gibson in his endeavor.
10. Isaiah 40:31
February 13, 2004
12:21 AM
Well Challie, bless your heart - your is about the most anti-Catholic site I have seen for some time. Perhaps you would do well to research the history of Christianity itself, to learn that our 7 accepted books that you refer to as Apocrypha, were always accepted until the Reformation and Luther, and the words faith alone do not appear anywhere in the Scriptures at all, and in theory does away with Grace which is the beginning of your faith and obedience which is the fruit.
It might interest you to know how Luther felt about Mary - he highly venerated her, as do all Catholics. You don’t accept that but you do accept the changes Luther made to your own Bible? You don’t accept the words (inspired) of Saint John’s gospel where Christ said, “Behold your mother”? and the wedding at Cana - where Christ performed his very first miracle and Mary tells us “Do whatever he tells you.” Doesn’t it say that not a word shall be added or subtracted? Don’t you find it suspect that your Old Testament of books folows a Jewish council and not a Christian one? Why did Luther remove them? They pointed to certain Catholic beliefs. And if you wish to read the Bible literally, then you should pay particular attention to John 6, reading it also literally, then re-read the story of Christ’s appearance (after his resurrection) to the two apostles on the road to Emmaus. They also received the Eucharist. It was in the breaking of the bread (after he took it,and said the blessing)and giving it to them that “their eyes were opened and they recognized him”. Then guess what happened - he disappeared right before their very eyes! Hmmmm - they could no longer SEE him - get it?? I think your views on ecumenism are highly suspect expecially since the Gospel tells us we are one body. After the Reformation and the countless NEW denominations (more than 25,000 at last count) preaching a new gospel for itching ears - it is a wonder the Catholic church remains intact - but of course it does because “even the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.” Blessings!
11.
February 14, 2004
1:26 PM
“even the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.” Nuff Said Brotha!
12. Anna
February 14, 2004
11:26 PM
Personally, I do not understand why we still have such disagreements or problems between denominations. As long as one believes that God created him/her and because of our sins, we are separated from God and Jesus Christ bridged that gap by dying on the cross, and accepts Jesus as our personally saviour…I mean, that is the most important thing and as long as we agree to that, can’t we accept them as our brothers and sisters regardless of their denominations?
13. Rose
February 17, 2004
5:04 AM
I am not a Baptist, I am not a Lutheran, I am not a Charismatic. I am a follower of Jesus, the Messsiah of the Bible. Denominations will come and go. So, we can not be “too fanatical” about it. I believe some divisions are man made and some are divinely made. The key to any divinely made division is who they say JESUS CHRIST is, because this is the only thing that gives us true fellowship with one another. All other divisions are driven by men.
14. doug
February 19, 2004
6:32 PM
One question I would ask about the movie is “what happens next?” Yes, this movie depicts Jesus being crucified and the prior 12 hours but what about the ressurection? In 1 Corinthians 15:15-18 we read “Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” The gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation” is the death, burrial and RESURECTION as seen in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:” Without this important element of the plan of salvation people are left with a dead savior. Did Christ raise physically (bodily) and literally or just figuativly and in spirit? This is something to consider if you want a real conversion to take place. Almost no one will deny that Christ lived or even died but to rise again? Only God in human flesh did that.
15. Isaiah 40:31
February 21, 2004
10:25 PM
http://members.aol.com/wingz88360/page3/index.htm
A website dedicated to the Passion of Christ.(not the movie of the same name) In Mel’s defense, this movie is about Christ’s personal sacrifice, the “emptying of Himself”, which in Truth is more shocking (considering His divinity) than the Resurrection. It’s release on Ash Wednesday is perfectly appropriate considering the Lenten season during which we are to contemplate the sacrifice He made for us. All would do well during the viewing of the movie to also contemplate their own culpability/responsibility for the shedding of His most Precious Blood. Kudos to Mel who in fact holds the nail that is pounded into Christs hand. The reality is that each of us is to blame, as sinners. His Blood truly is on our own hands (the hands of every human being) and those of all our children, untill He comes again. Blessings to all, in Him
16. Curtis
February 22, 2004
1:31 AM
Doug brings up a good point. The resurrection is a vital point of the Gospel. Romans 10:9 states “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth THE LORD JESUS, and shalt believe in thine heart that GOD hath raised HIM from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” If people only believe that JESUS died on the cross for their sins, they only believe a part of the gospel. The passage in 1 Corinthians that Doug quoted goes on to say in verse 19 “If in this life only we have hope in CHRIST, we are of all men most miserable.”
At the end of his message on Mar’s Hill Paul said “Forasmuch the as we are the offspring of GOD, we ought not to think that the GODHEAD is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance GOD winked at; but now commandeth all men to repent: Because HE hathappointed a day, in the which HE will judge the world in rightouness by that MAN WHOM HE hath ordained; whereof HE hath given assuance unto all men, in that HE hath raised HIM from the dead” (Acts 17:29-31). The ressurection is man’s assurance. It is vitally important. It is important to note the reaction of the people after Paul finished. “And when they had heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter” (Acts 17:32). It was not the fact that JESUS died that caused division among the people, but it was the fact of the resurrection that caused division.
17. Isaiah 40:31
February 22, 2004
6:06 AM
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son so that whosoever might believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:15 “He was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins. Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole. By his stripes we were healed.” Isaiah 53
Blessings to All
18. Bill
February 22, 2004
3:44 PM
The true sorrow of Jesus was not the physical suffering. But the Catholics make what they can see and understand the be all and end all. They bring it down to an earthly level which leaves them unsaved. They can understand physical pain so they focus on that. Not being holy we are poor at imagining what it was like to be forsaken of God. So we leave that aside and focus in error on what we can understand and thereby gut the cross of its true meaning and power and go away unsaved. This is true of Protestants as well but on paper their doctrine is more correct.
19. Isaiah 40:31
February 23, 2004
3:25 AM
Bill writes>>> “But the Catholics make what they can see and understand the be all and end all. They bring it down to an earthly level which leaves them unsaved.” Regarding your first statement - care to discuss the Eucharist now, or John 6, via e-mail, since this is not the forum?? Do you see Him in the Eucharist? “But Jesus knew who would not believe him and the one who would betray Him.”
Regarding your second statement, “Judge not lest you be judged, let him who is without sin cast the fisrt stone.” “He indeed died for ALL so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised.”
Blessings.
20. eddie
February 23, 2004
4:04 AM
I am sure glad that God decided to chose a Catholic guy to make this movie. I am not Catholic, but it underscores that God can speak through an ass if He needs to. In the end, it’s about Jesus, not about Mel, Jim or anything else. Paul preached Jesus and Him crucified - nothing less.
In the Son
21. Tim
February 23, 2004
10:15 AM
“The Passion” is a forthright, compassionate, evenhanded presentation of the historic facts of the trial, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I found it deeply moving, factually accurate and unprejudiced in its presentation.”
I’m afraid I cannot agree with that quote. Gibson himself has said that he drew inspiration from extra-Biblical writings. Unless you believe these visions are factual, you have to admit that the movie is not “factually accurate” in everything.
22. Jon M.C
February 23, 2004
9:29 PM
I agree with the essence of your statement in a biblical matter. I believe that when this movie comes out, there can be a strong possiblity that it can confuse and make the world’s view on God even more distorted. I myself, am a non-dominational Christian who believes in Jesus and the Trinity. I see that mel gibson is a devoted catholic and I don’t agree with his testimony. I personally believe that catholicism has cultic practices. The problem that I have with catholics is because that have made an addition to the Holy Bible, when the bible strongly prohibbits us from doing this in the final book of revelation. They have contray beliefs to the Bible and false beliefs on Jesus and Mary. So how could a catholic write a movie on Jesus?
23. Michelle
February 24, 2004
2:27 PM
I have read your article among others, and quite frankly, I do not understand the fervor. #1 Mel Gibson is a Catholic. At this time of year, he is doing what Catholics all over the world are doing. He is reflecting on the death of Christ. Catholics meditate on this by celebrating The Stations of The Cross. We start at the Sentencing and progress thru the falls, the help by Simon, Veronica washing his face, etc. It is something we do every Lent. That Mel Gibson has made a movie depicting these stations is not to denigrate or segregate anyone, merely a celebration of our religion and beliefs. If others take offense, then why do they not target the Stations as we say them at Church? #2 That “Hollywood” and the liberal (let’s not offend anyone) media take offense to the violence is ludicrous. There was nothing nice about the Crucifixion of our Lord, NOTHING pretty about it. These same people would have us watch sexually graphic exhibitions at the Super bowl and have no qualms whatsoever about giving us slasher movies. Their sheer gaped mouth reactions are laughable. As to the movie being anti-Semitic. That is for the Jews to decide, not the media. In most Catholic churches today we have groups that are “Jews for Christ”. Would anyone consider them anti-Semitic? That we may all learn something from this movie, or perhaps be moved by it is beyond the critics scope of reasoning.
24. dedrick
February 24, 2004
4:54 PM
it’s a very good movie.So until you go and see it, don’t judge it just yet. Were not even supposed to judge anyway.
25. Charlene
February 24, 2004
6:53 PM
Just wondering, what do you think of the evangelistic film “Jesus” shown all over the world? Campus Crusade credits it with saving 176 million souls.
26. Tim
February 24, 2004
7:05 PM
I have never seen the “Jesus” film. I do intend to but just have never been presented with the opportunity. I understand that it is very well made and exceedingly close to the gospel story. I would be a little skeptical of the number 176 million just because it is very hard to measure numbers like that. If you say 176 million people made committments following watching that movie I could believe it, but there is a vast difference between making a committment and actually following through. If you consider Jesus’ parable about sowing wheat, that 176 would measure seed that fell in rocky places, fell among thistles, etc, correct?
Still, as I understand it, it is a good and effective evangelism tool, but as I said, I have not seen it.
27. Mark
February 24, 2004
10:44 PM
Tim, I enjoyed reading your comments. I too would love to hear what Sproul, McArthur, or even the late John Gerstner would have had to say. Mark
28. Mike
February 25, 2004
7:10 AM
Movies are evil? Lighten up! And just a note, Roman Catholosim believes itself to be the Christian faith that has not “strayed” from its values. All other Christain denominations have. NOT THAT IT MATTERS!! The Bible stories were written up to a 100 years after Christ’s death. The important thing to remember is His Message. A Message that most of the world seems to forgotten. If Gibson’s film gets even one person to wake up, then it was worth it.
29. mary jane
February 26, 2004
10:18 AM
i saw the movie yesterday………….it was awesome. I was speechless, I haven’t stopped thinking about it, my religion, my beliefs, what I was taught and where to go from here. I think that was Mel’s intentions and I applaud him.
30.
February 26, 2004
11:26 PM
http://bridegroompress.com/sc/index.htm For those who accuse Catholicism of being “wrong”, full of “cultic practices”, and contrary to the Scriptures - seek and you shall find that every bit of Catholic doctrine is Scripture based.
An interesting aside, Satan translates to “the accuser”. Makes you wanna go hmmm. You Go Mel!!! Blessings.
31. randy
February 27, 2004
7:56 PM
I just saw the film and while Gibson takes some artistic “license” to introduce the characters of Satan and how his influence animates men (even children in the movie)and Simon the Cyrene who carried the cross with/for Jesus, I found that great majority of the film follows the literal gospel account (especially that in Luke). There is great respect given the Bible account unlike the majority of Hollywood productions (The Greatest Story Ever Told, The Big Fisherman, etc).
I would not ordinarily recommend going to an R-rated movie, but Christ’s crucifixion was likely X-rated. See the movie and decide for yourself. Better yet, take an unsaved friend, relative or neighbor to see it and who knows what God will do? Randy
32. John
March 1, 2004
2:05 PM
I am a Catholic. And your concerns are worthy of praise. Because you are one of the few protestants I know who gets the movie. It’s a Catholic movie. Mary’s role is shown as a fulfillment of Genesis and the new eve. And most importantly the Eucharist fulfilling John Chapter 6 is shown. It is even more obvious because the character emphasized at the Last Supper is John. No apologies here. Christians believed in Jesus’ words in Jn 6, 3 last supper accounts and Paul’s interpretation from the beginning. I am saddened so many Christians do not have the grace that comes from receiving Christ at the Mass from an direct successor to an Apostle.
33. Francois Mulder
March 4, 2004
5:27 AM
Hi from South Africa I just received this article by JOHN PIPER: An Open Letter to Rabbi Marcia Zimmerman, Temple Israel March 03, 2004
Dear Rabbi Zimmerman,
Thank you for your email of 2-27-04 addressed to some of us among the downtown clergy concerning Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ. I read most of your letter to our people on Sunday morning as part of my sermon. We take heart from your expression of a “deep and abiding commitment to understand each other [with] a willingness to discuss difficult issues.” With that in view I thought I would write, for you and for our people, a response to your letter and to the movie from a New Testament perspective.
We believe that the New Testament, as well as the Tanach, are the inspired word of God and provide a progressive revelation of God’s dealings with humankind—a revelation that is unified and reliable. Therefore we try, all too imperfectly, to bring our lives into conformity to what the New Testament teaches about Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of all the Scriptures.
We respect the misgivings you have about the portrayal of Jews in the film and the possibility, as you say, “of the potential rifts this film could open once again … between Jews and Christians.” There are “rifts” that we do not want to open—rifts of hostility, or stereotyping prejudice, or violence. These we renounce. Indeed we apologize for them and repent of such behavior toward Jews in history from the Christian community.
But there is a tension, isn’t there, between what you call “responsible, accurate and sensitive portrayals of the Passion,” on the one hand, and the “mission to build bridges of understanding and peace”? What shall we do when a “responsible, accurate and sensitive” portrayal of the Passion of Jesus builds a bridge of understanding but not always peace? What if the bridge of understanding produces anger? This was sometimes the experience of such bridge-building in the New Testament, and has been the experience of some of us today.
We believe that a responsible, accurate, sensitive portrayal of Jesus’ suffering includes the statement of its loving purpose. Here are several New Testament examples: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost” (1 Timothy 1:15); “God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8); “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
Most Jews do not mind Christians enjoying these religious sentiments. The “rift” comes when the accurate, responsible, sensitive portrayal of Jesus includes his claim to be the only way to God. He made this claim repeatedly. “ I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6); “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36); “Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33).
The bridge that we desire to cross between the Jewish and Christian faith is one that was built for us in the New Testament. It includes an explanation and invitation to all of us—Jews and Gentiles—to know Jesus as the magnificent fulfillment of Isaiah 53. “Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities” (verse 11). The bridge is single. There is one way to God together: the way of faith in Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.
Peace and reconciliation between humans and God, and between Jew and Gentile, are one of the great achievements of the Gospel of Christ. We Gentile Christians stand amazed that we have been included in the covenant God made through Abraham. The apostle Paul celebrates this astonishing grace: “But now in Christ Jesus you [Gentiles] who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both [Jew and Gentile] one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility” (Ephesians 2:13-16).
This is the one bridge to God and each other—the cross of Christ, which Mel Gibson’s movie so powerfully portrays. May God give us grace to cross this bridge together. I enclose a copy of my book, The Passion of Jesus Christ, with the hope that it will help advance the aim we share “to understand each other [with] a willingness to discuss difficult issues.”
John Piper, Pastor Bethlehem Baptist Church
34. Francois Mulder
March 4, 2004
5:43 AM
http://www.razormouth.com/archives/00000347.htm Interesting review by Brian Godawa
35. John M. Esparolini
March 9, 2004
9:57 AM
Francois, thanks for the URL to Godawa’s review. His analysis is very well thought out and refreshingly reasonable, especially his take —as a Protestant Christian— on the film’s Catholic “flavor,” especially its portrayal of Mary:
“A Romish Bias?
“A third concern of some Protestants regards the Roman Catholic theology of Mel Gibson, the producer and passion behind Passion. I don’t know Mr. Gibson personally, so I can’t speak for him; but as a Protestant Christian, I can say that if there is any Roman influence on the film, it is negligible to the point of irrelevance.
“Christ’s actual teachings in the film are minimal and told in flashback, so truth is delivered more through context than proposition. For instance, the Lord’s Supper is remembered at one point in Christ’s bloody punishment. Yet, this symbolic connection is entirely in accord with John’s Gospel narrative, where “eating His flesh” and “drinking His blood” is a sacramental connection with His death and suffering (John 6:52-59). There is no apparent notion in the film of Eucharistic transubstantiation, such as in The Last Temptation of Christ, where Christ literally rips out His flesh and asks His disciples to eat it.
“Even the sensitive and loving portrait of Mary in the movie does not seem to elevate her to the position of “co-mediatrix”. I watched for this exaltation, but was pleasantly relieved. If anything, Mary’s part in the story is a welcomed corrective to the Protestant pendulum swing of downplaying the mother of Jesus. She is shown as a loving mother with a young adult Jesus who teases her affectionately. No “Queen of Heaven” there, just a good mom. She is shown racked with spiritual anguish — “pierced in her own soul” (Luke 2:35) — at every beating of Jesus. And whose mother would not vicariously experience the punishment of her son? She wipes His blood off the ground in an irrational reaction of helplessness. I know my mother would. There is a beautiful scene where Mary watches Christ fall on the Via Dolorosa, and cannot help Him, but in her mind remembers Him as a little child falling, and herself running to His aid. Very moving, very real, and very much like my mom.
“Mary holds Christ’s body after being taken down from the cross in what has come to be a symbolic “Pietá” pose. While it may be the case that the Pietá in Roman Catholic theology became a symbolic reference to Mary’s co-redemptive unity with Christ, it was first of all an altogether believable expression of a mother’s love of her dead son (even if the detail is not recorded in the biblical narrative), and can be appreciated on that level. We are not uneducated plebians relying on sculpture as our text.
“There is also a powerful ironic moment where Christ is being led to His scourging and the devil appears in the crowd holding a mutant baby as an androgynous mockery of Christ’s own virginal incarnation. Let’s not forget that the virgin birth was, after all, a key event in Christianity, regardless of denomination.
“The short of it all is that the filmmaker’s Roman Catholicism brings mere accent and flavor to the film’s orthodox presentation without slipping into partisan heresy. It shows the perfectly human realistic reactions and connection that Jesus’s mother would have in such an extreme situation. And if such minor symbolic references are so easily reinterpreted depending on the viewer’s theological perspective, then those symbols need not compel us to specific didactic conclusions.”
36. Jerry Bouey
March 16, 2004
8:43 PM
We are not uneducated plebians relying on sculpture (I assume the word “scripture” is meant here) as our text.
That’s the problem with the so-called Christians endorsing this movie: On one hand they cry, “Come see it. It is so true to the Bible (the Gospels)”, and on the other hand they admit that this movie contradicts and adds to the Bible!
Truly, James was right when he stated that “a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways”!
Why be concerned about truth? It only gets in the way when it comes to being ecumenical and pursuing our own pleasure, regardless of what God’s will and Word is regarding each issue…
Post Your Comment Here »