- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostBlog of the Week - Between The Cushions
- Next Post »A Note About When Good Men Are Tempted
Banner of Truth on The Passion
- 02/23/04
- 13
Thanks to Maryanne for sending me a link to an excellent article in The Banner of Truth entitled Five Reasons Not To Go See The Passion of Christ. The author (Andrew J. Webb) focuses on the movie’s origins, script, theology, medium and main character. Many of his points are similar to ones I have been thinking, praying and writing about. Here are some pertinent quotes:
This is in marked contrast to the Jesus film, which is unabashedly Protestant and Evangelical in its production and message and which has been widely used in evangelizing Roman Catholics. It is largely for this reason that the Jesus film has not been utilized or endorsed by Roman Catholics. By contrast, The Passion of Christ has already proven its effectiveness as an evangelism tool in producing Catholic conversions and encouraging Catholic devotion.
For modern evangelicals to embrace a vehicle that is inauthentic in order to achieve evangelistic ends indicates a serious decline in faithfulness.
Lest we forget, the greatest torment that Christ experienced on the cross was not caused by the nails driven into his flesh, but in his being made “sin for us” and vicariously suffering the righteous punishment of the Father in our place. Even the worst physical torments inflicted by the Sanhedrin and the Romans upon Jesus were nothing by comparison to the anguish of having the sins of all the elect imputed to Him and making full satisfaction for them.
The means that God has ordained for the transmission of the Gospel, was neither drama, imagery, nor even “lectures” - it is preaching.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (13)
Tim-
One of my main issues with this movie is one that I could not pinpoint until I read this article- there is no celebration or real acknowlegement it would seem, of the finished work of Christ…that CHrist is not the pitiful, helpless man on the cross..Rather, He is alive, powerful, and mighty to save, and extremely active in day-to-day events around the world.
“The means that God has ordained for the transmission of the Gospel, was neither drama, imagery, nor even “lectures” - it is preaching.”
Too black and white. Can someone understand the gospel if I “share” it with them over lunch. Can one read the NT and understand it? Too subjective for me, Tim. I’m going to it :)
I believe I am going to it too. I believe it is beyond dispute that preaching is the primary means God uses to spread the gospel, but certainly don’t believe that precludes all other methods. Some are good, some are bad, some are better than others, etc.
I just posted the article - I didn’t say I necessarily agree with it 100%! :)
Good discussion here and a great article… I have been torn up about this for months now. While Webb’s article is not the piece that resolves the tension for me, it did help me decide that I won’t go see it in the near future. It seems that if in our conscience there is debate, we ought to err on the side of caution. Perhaps in a month I will come to a Scriptural conviction that allows me to view the film - and if I have waited until then to see it, what have I lost? Not much.
Good comment, Matt. I am justifying it in my mind as something I am do to educate myself about the movie. I know some people will be interested in what I have to say about it since I’ve written about it so much. And, of course, I am interested in the hype. I am going in considering it just another movie and not as some religious experience. If it is unScriptural and offends my conscience I will not hesitate to walk out.
Many thought the methods of Jesus in His preaching and teaching to be unconventional. In fact they were. He used parables, object lessons and miracles to reinforce His message. And they hated him for it.
I don’t discount the importance of preaching, but I’m convinced that if Christ Himself walked the earth physically today, there would be many so called Christians who would not like Him or His methods.
Why can’t we take the film for what it is: a film, a tool. nothing more, nothing less. God has used far worse in the bible and throughout history to accomplish his work. (see Cyrus the persian, King Nebuchadnezzar and virtually the whole Old Testament)
Some OT prophets complained at God’s uncoventional methods. Using ungodly and wicked people to accomplish His purpose. One of the many examples is Habakkuk. When he cried out to God for help during days where wickedness was rampant, God responded by indicating He would use Chaldeans/Babylonians to judge Judah. How can God use the ungodly to judge those more righteous than they? The ultimate answer was that God would have mercy on whom He would have mercy. Translation: your ways are not my ways. As macarthur states, He’s not to be worshipped merely for temporal blessings but for His own sake. I’m sure others such as job, hosea, jonah, esther, rahab, joseph, abraham and others thought God’s ways to be highly unconventional. Yet effective.
I’m not going to complain about what God might possibly use to accomplish His work and I’m not saying anyone else is either. But instead, I will wait….wait for Him to work and thank Him that I was able to be a part of it.
Sorry so long. My 2 pennies.
LJ - I would agree that throughout redemptive history God has used “unconventional means” - He even ordains and uses human sin (e.g. Joseph, captivity of Israel, etc.) to accomplish His purposes. But we need to be careful not to let His sovereignty negate our responsibility. If we do in fact believe that Scripture does prohibit imaging of the Godhead (including the Son), then discussions of “God can still use it” miss the point. Shall we sin that grace might abound all the more? Absolutely not!
Perhaps I’m not clear on your position so i may be missing your point completely but let me try. And by my comments, I do not mean to argue, only to try and understand.
1. If you are referring to graven images, it’s true that is in the Bible and I’m not debating that fact. But wasn’t that commandment given to Israel because of their penchant for idolatry? And to their present unrest as a country without a land? (i.e. they would meet many people and nations with diverse beliefs that would tempt them. this is evident in the fact that while moses received the law, they were breaking the first one given with the golden calf (which they learned from egypt).So is there a danger in idol worship with this movie? I suppose. Will people worship the screen? I doubt it. Will they uplift caviezal (who plays Jesus) or Mel Gibson? It could happen. But I think the reason there is such a great response to this film is not because of caviezal or gibson. It’s Christ. And while we may see a man on screen who portrays Christ, I doubt most sensible people will leave the movie wanting to start a James Caviezal or Mel Gibson gospel church. But I have no problem with the graven image argument as long as people are consistent. Some will no doubt walk right past their stain glassed windows, complete with the story of Christ, right out to protest this movie.
2. I don’t think Paul was writing to the Romans in regard to graven images. And while it is a sin and still applicable probably under that verse, I think it is a stretch to support your argument.I believe Paul is teaching the Romans about Justification/sanctification, the fact that they are saved based solely on the free grace of God. As a former Pharisee he anticipated his critics by saying that he wasn’t encouraging others to sin by preaching on justification by grace.”Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid.”
I certainly didn’t intend my argument to be a “God can still use it” one. There are definitely limitations to what our responsibilities as Christians allow and support. I’m not saying jump on every bandwagon that has “God” written on the side. You may find it taking you somewhere you don’t want to go. But if the Holy Spirit is inside, you will have discernment. I pray that I am led by the Spirit.But I’m convinced that many Christians will never see revival because they are continually squabbling over how they perceive God will come. In the meantime, God has come and worked and they weren’t a part of it. Many of those same people pray for revival.
The Banner’s Andrew Webb made several boo-boos, but my favorite is this one:
…This is in marked contrast to the Jesus film, which is unabashedly Protestant and Evangelical in its production and message and which has been widely used in evangelizing Roman Catholics. It is largely for this reason that the Jesus film has not been utilized or endorsed by Roman Catholics.
This is simply laughable on both counts:
(1) There is nothing uniquely Protestant —let alone uniquely Evangelical— about the JESUS film. Like the recently released The Gospel of John, it’s merely a straightforward word-for-word rendition of one of the Gospels (Matthew) with no one denomination’s theological “spin” put on it. Anyone who has seen the JESUS film knows this. I certainly do, since my (Catholic!) parish owns six copies and our CCD staff including, myself, use them frequently for our classes.
(2) Not only is Bill Bright’s JESUS film routinely sold in Catholic bookstores —including the one at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC where I bought my personal copy— the entire JESUS Film Project has been both utilized and endorsed by numerous Catholic organizations, such as U.S. Catholic Charismatic Renewal, and by many Catholic missionaries in the Third World. It was also praised by none other than the late Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Moreover, Bright’s research staff included Catholic as well as Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, and secular scholars.
In fact, it was for these and other similar “sins” and forms of “apostasy” that fanatical anti-“Romanist” loons like Jack Chick, Dave Hunt, and David Cloud have regularly castigated both Bill Bright and the JESUS Film Project since its inception. For an example of such wacko hand-wringing, go to:
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/ccc/jesusfbk.htm
IMNSHO, Mr. Webb needs to take a Journalism 101 course, where he can learn that the first rule of reporting is to check one’s facts before going to print, and thus avoid making a fool of oneself in public. Such sloppiness and disregard for the facts should cast serious doubt on the credibility of the rest of Mr. Webb’s article.
John,
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your comments about the Catholic Church with the Jesus film as I have often wondered if Webb was correct on that account.
I would suggest that your criticism could be posed in less inflamatory language. Calling people “anti-Romanist loons” seemingly goes against Jesus’ teaching that we are to love others as ourselves.
I would suggest that your criticism could be posed in less inflamatory language. Calling people “anti-Romanist loons” seemingly goes against Jesus’ teaching that we are to love others as ourselves.
OK. Fair ‘nuff. My bad and my apologies.
Though I think one could make an exception with Chick. ;-)
You would not be the first to make that exception with Chick! :) Admittedly, I do respect the man despite his outspokeness. Or maybe I just really dig comic books.
Mel Gibson’s “PASSION” and the blood and water of Jn. 19:34:Fascinatinging new view of something filmed but not explained.Biblical, concisely written, and illustrated with drawings.http://home.earthlink.net/~tonybadillo/passion.html
YOU ARE WELCOME TO LINK, AND ALSO COPY THIS MESSAGE AND EMAIL IT TO OTHERS.