- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostBlog of the Week - Ochuk's Blog
- Next Post »Sunday Reflection - The Shorter Catechism
The Passion & Pragmatism
- 01/31/04
- 11
I have indicated several times that I have concerns with the upcoming movie The Passion of the Christ. I would like to provide some information about why I have those concerns.
Primarily, the concerns stem from the fact that my church is going to be heavily invested in this movie. Until I discovered my church's plans in regard to the film I had little interest in it. But then my pastors have announced that they intend to buy and give away 5000 tickets to the film. They are going to purchase entire shows and just give the tickets away. After the shows they will give out information packages directing people to our church and asking them to think about and meditate upon what they have just seen. Starting next week the local theatre (24 screens) will have a sign advertising the free tickets, so we expect all 5000 tickets to be snatched up in short order. We will be running ads in the local newspaper, sending out postcards and letting people know by word-of-mouth. The pastors are more excited about this opportunity than I have ever seen them (with the exception, perhaps, of the day the church started). As the Web designer for our church, I have been asked to put together a site that will allow people to register for these tickets. As part of the marketing team I will be involved in drawing people to see the movie.
You see, then, that my concern is mostly selfish. I am going to be investing myself in this movie, and it is a movie I have not yet seen. The last thing I want to do is heavily invest my time and talents in a movie that I will later find God could not possibly bless. I want to do His will, and in this case it is difficult for me to discern what His will is. Part of that is because I have not seen the movie, and the other part goes deeper.
I abhor the pragmatism so common in this day and age, both in the church and beyond. Pragmatism is the belief that an action is made right or wrong on the basis of the results. I see so many people excited about this movie because of what they see it may achieve, but that is not the standard God calls us to hold to. He tells us to measure everything against the Bible. Our first thought when presented with an opportunity like this one is to look at the Word and see what it says. Does the Bible support making a movie about Jesus? Many people I know and respect would emphatically answer "no!" The tradition in which I was raised would definitely be against such a movie as I was taught to believe that portraying Jesus is in violation of the second commandment (which commands us not to make an image of God). I also have concerns with the fact that Mel Gibson is Roman Catholic and in saying that this movie is an expression of his faith, we are equating Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. I cannot judge Gibson for I know little about the man, but regardless of his beliefs, I strongly disagree with equating the Catholic and Protestant faith.
At this time I have not yet decided what I think about the movie. I have little doubt that people will be drawn to churches and drawn to God through this movie. It may well be one of the greatest evangelistic opportunities of our time. But, and this may sound crazy, the results do not tell us if it is right or wrong. God may use our folly for His glory, but that does not excuse our sin. I want to measure everything I do against the Word of God. And that is exactly what I intend to do with this movie!
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 (11)
I went to Quicktime this morning and watched the trailer. I just don’t like it. I’m afraid of it. All the actors have been using Colgate for whiter teeth and I doubt that was available 2000 years ago. It’s melodramatic. Not “Dramatic” but “Melodramatic” which is an EXAGGERATED use of sensation and emotionalism. The hammer falls in slow motion to the ground and the sub-woofer kicks in (boom) as the dust flies. We watch a single tear roll down the face of Mary. Yea, right. I don’t worry about grounded Christians seeing this movie but I’m in limbo about the unconverted watching it.
I was initially totally for the movie and thanks to your article of have been left with a few things to think about. You have raised quite a few interesting points, I am in Australia so I am not sure when the movie is realsed here but I look forward to reading your thoughts once you do see it. God Bless.
I appreciate and respect your views albeit vehemently disagee with using drama and film to communicate the gospel.
Forgive me for addressing these in detail but my passion for Christ entreats me to. First of all, is it God’s Will to proclaim the Gospel, of course it is. Is it only to be done through reading the Word. That would be a shame and scripture having to proclaimed boldly(don’t think that can be done without speaking). No where in the bible does it say how to preach(meaning what vehicle should be used) but what to preach. If you examine the scriptures there are many instances of Jesus, disciples and old testament characters using drama,illustrations and story-telling as vehicles to proclaim The Word.
I am concerned when well meaning believers become a judge before even seeing the movie. Do you not trust the leadership in your church Tim? Is it possible that they may be seeing something you’re not. Is it responsible to comment on a trailer in the above terms. Hollywood is not the devil. Its a message deliverer just like you and I except with a much greater circle of influence than any of us could be individually. Its the responsibility of us to be standard bearers. Of course there is going to be dramatics, its designed to capture the heart. ITS 100% scripture in the original languages—yes its on film and yes there are scenes that are interpreted but i don’t believe my entire pastoral team and elders and deacons are all wrong. Thats a great assumption on your part.
I agree results do not justify the means, fruit is our objective not gifts or results,but Mel Gibson had many rejections and strong resistance from Hollywood to the degree that he had to bankroll it to get it made. That to me speaks to his integrity a bit. He is willing to sacrafice his career to do this(he has been getting death threats). How much sacrafice are we willing to make to have many hear the gospel, and it is preached,what cost are we willing to pay.Are we afraid of God going outside our comfort zones and preconceptions and God using someone else, not of our protestant view(like the captain pushed Jonah out of the boat)to get out His Love.
Maybe melodramatic is the definition of a heart challenged, rather than truth communicated. The senses are God’s gift and should be used objectively in the pursuit of truth. Also concentration of Christs crucifiction is very much the same purpose as communion, in rememberance of His Death and resurrection.
Lastly, there are Christian brothers and sisters in the entertainment industry(believe it or not even network execs)at all levels letting their light shine, from TV to film to theatre, all doing their part to communicate truth to a very dying world. They need our support not our criticism.
I appreciate Doug’s passionate argument but I struggle with that view. Our church is developing a “Drama Team” and I don’t agree with it. I’m nervous about using images to portray the Lord. I’m not sure that the Gospel is being proclaimed. I think the “Gist” of the Gospel is being presented but the “Gist” of the Gospel leads to Arminianism which is a false Gospel. I can assure you without seeing the movie that the “Passion” will NOT present the truth of the Gospel that Jesus Died for Sinners. It will say that Jesus loves you and died for you. There is a fine point here but you know what they say, “The Devil is in the details!”
I must diagree with several of the postings.
1) The problem concern Mel being a Roman Catholic and questioning his faith compared to a Protestant. Are we saying that FAITH and your denominational choice is one in the same. I would disagree.
2) The problem of using an image to portray the message of the Gospel and Christ. The Bible itself is full of images to get across specific illustrations of Christ himself. Jesus used parables, full of imagery to get across heavenly messages with Earthly meanings.
Please don’t miss the opportunity to share the message that Jesus died for ALL OF US !! And that it is OUR responsibility to spread the Word, we weren’t told or limited in how we fulfill that commandment.
If it helps one person come to a saving knowledge of Christ then it is worth it!!!
Thanks Randy for making my point. There is a difference between “images” and imagery. And, Jesus did NOT die for ALL OF US!! He laid down his life for His people. Matthew 1:21. Arminianism has once again raised it’s ugly head.
Tim as you so eloquently have shared your opinions with the rest of us, it is now nice to know that there are people like you who can discern between the chosen and those just left out. I must read John 3:16 over and find exactly which part of the “world” God loved. And I truly hope that I am one of the “whosovers”. I hope you get the “gist” of this post. And I appreciate Mel standing up for his beliefs and not trying to hide behind Theology and the lack of understanding.
I appreciate the review. For greater understanding of Gibson’s ‘faith’ look at great article in Atlantic monthly. He is very pre-vatican II and expouses rome’s view of ‘infused righteousness.’ This can only be applied through the roman catholic church. He is definitely would not affirm ‘sola fide’ as Scripture defines it. His use of latin affirms his roman catholic bias.
I have no issue with regard to the accuracy of the film to the biblical account in spite of the inspiration Mel Gibson received from the writings of mystic, seer and stigmatist, Anne Catherine Emmerich. Emmerich has written of her visions of the garden of Eden, purgatory and the crucifixion. She is alleged to have visited purgatory several times and revealed that protestants suffer there much more than Catholics because no one prays or offers Masses for them. She saw how various indulgences we gain actually remit specific punishments, which otherwise await us in purgatory, etc. (you get the idea) Gibson carries an Emmerich relic in his pocket.Of course, Gibson, a traditional Catholic believes that only Catholics can go to heaven and he does not believe his own wife, who he says is a better Christian than himself, will make it (ref: New Yorker 9/15/03). Gibson reported a need to be “squeaky clean” before the shooting of the film each day so he attended daily Mass. Like, Jim Caviezel, they now believe it is even more important to pray the rosary and believe they will enter heaven through the virgin Mary. Now Jesus, himself, taught his disciples not to pray as heathen do by repeating their vain repetitions, repeating their words again and again. Jesus, alone, is our intercessor. Jesus also said that no one came to the father except through him.OK, this is it. The evangelical world is just enamored with Gibson for making this film about Jesus. But, these same evangelicals preach that salvation comes by faith, through grace and faith and grace alone. A person can know and believe in all the facts about the birth, life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, but remain in the same lost state. Knowing facts about the saviour does not save a person. Faith does. Faith alone in Jesus Chirst. Not baptism, not baptism, not church membership, not good works, not religion, sacraments, our thousands of Hail Marys. You must know Jesus, not know about him. He is the way, the only way. He, himself said He was. These things do not trouble the evangelical world.
So, if a man trusts in his baptism, his relics, his communion, his ties to his church, his good deeds, etc. he has substituted these for everything Christ accomplished on the cross. This person does not believe in the work of Christ. He believes in what he can do to earn and obtain grace. Jesus’ sacrificial death was sufficient, but the natural man finds it truly difficult to accept unmerited grace.So, pray for Mel Gibson that he may come into a personal relationship with the Christ and believe on Him alone for salvation. I cannot know the man’s heart. Only God can know this. But, his own testimony and the evidence suggest that his hope for salvation rests in Catholic membership, the sacraments and his own good deeds. Jesus must be the object one’s faith. In Matthew Chapter 7, Jesus said there would be those who did “wonderful works” in His name, including casting out demons, but He professes “away from Me, I never knew you, you who work iniquity. These are pretty scary words for those who are trusting in their religion.
Thousands of people physically witnessed the death of Jesus nearly 2000 years ago. Apparently, none came to saving faith because of what they saw. In fact, they all deserted Him. Later, when the Holy Spirit came upon them, they understood the gospel message and they believed.
I think that God has found a wonderful instrument in Mel Gibson and his abilities to get such a movie out to the public. I’ve heard so many people who have problems with this and that, and I frankly don’t understand. Do you have nothing else to nitpick about? This movie depicts the final 12 hours of Jesus Christ’s life. This will turn so many people on to the love of God. I don’t see how anyone can say that it’s a bad thingor find faults. This is a wonerful thing. Embrace it! You are going to instil ill will into people who read your blog. Spend your time spreading the love of God instead of nitpicking at Mel Gibson’s movie.
I surfed onto your this blog. I was looking to see if my own site was on the search engine and it looks as though I entitled my article in a similar way that you chose to entitle yours. I just put my own article up on the web which I had entitled My Concerns for Mel’s Passion. What I consider to be Mel’s real passion is his passion for Traditionalist Roman Catholicism. It is Mel’s statements given in interviews that concern me. I could have gone out to see the movie if Mel had not made the statements he made about the movie. Now that Mel has equated his movie with Traditionalist Roman Catholicism, I can’t endorse it. Mel told the world that this movie is about the Mass. I am a Protestant Reformation Christian. I do not believe that Jesus has to die daily. Hebrews 10 says He died once and for all. I am concerned that Protestant leaders endorsing this movie will leave Mel and every other Catholic with the idea that we are endorsing Caholicism. Mel says many disturbing things in his interviews which I believe should have served as a warning to discerning Protestants. But, I’m afraid that leaders in the Protestant church do not seem to understand what Caviezel means when he says their was a Muslim actor on the set who converted. Caviezel doesn’t mean that this person converted to Christianity. He means that this Muslim became a Roman Catholic. Indeed part of the publicity about this movie had to do with the fact that so many people on the set were either converted to Catholicism or returned to the Holy Mother Church. According to Mel, Caviezel said he could not portray Christ without the Host in him so Mel started having communion served twice a day on the site. I think we have an opportunity to witness to Roman Catholics now by explaining to them why we do NOT endorse the Passion for Christ movie. We have the oppotunity to tell the gospel of how Jesus died once and for all for our sins and has now given us the gift of Eternal life instead of the gospel of Mel and Tradisionalist Roman Catholicism which is that Christ died and suffered for our sins in order to “open the door” to salvation for us. In RC belief, Jesus only opened the door. The RC must get himself through that door with his works, celebrating the mass, living an exemplary Catholic lifem etc. It is horrifying to me that Caviezel visited Medjugorje and, during an apparition, felt a physical presence. He was given what he believes to be a relic of the true cross of Christ which was sewn into his clothing and he carries 5 other relics. Mel proudly showed to Diane Sawyer the relic he carries of Sister Catherine Emmerich. Do Protestants understand the immplications of all of this? Where are our leaders and our teachers? Nevertheless, let us use this opportunity to pray for Mel and Caviezel and all Roman Catholics and as an opportunity to witness to them. We can not be timid and hold back because we can remember that Martin Luther had to bravely take a stand againse the leaders of his church as he became convicted against these very things that Mel Gibson is advertising to the world and encouraging through his interviews. I am sorry that his movie becamse contaminated by his public associations of this movie to Roman Catholicism. Now, it is not just another movie about Christ. Mel has interpreted it to the public. He has said what it was … a movie about Traditionalist Catholicism.