02/19/04
MOVIE REVIEW
OF ‘THE PASSION OF CHRIST’
Andrew
Webb has authored an excellent movie critique entitled Five Reasons Not
to Go See The Passion of Christ available at http://forums.5solas.org/showthread.php?s=e55200fe47ae8d6816339d5493b283ca&t=1518
. Here are excerpts from that critique:
”On
February 25, 2004 Icon films, will be releasing Mel Gibson's much anticipated film
The Passion of Christ. The date of the release was deliberately chosen to
coincide with the Roman Catholic holy day of Ash Wednesday, and is indicative
of the fact that for Gibson, his film was more of a work of devotion than a
money making enterprise. In an interview on the Roman Catholic Television
Network EWTN, Gibson candidly stated why this movie is so different from all
his others, "It reflects my beliefs-I've never done that before."1 He
is also quite open about his desire to see his movie used for worldwide
evangelism. Many noted Evangelicals including James Dobson and Billy Graham
have also come forward to endorse The Passion of Christ and recommend its use
as a teaching tool. Currently, The Passion of Christ is riding a groundswell of
nationwide support from both Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, with many
well-known Evangelical congregations, such as best selling author and Pastor
Rick Warren's Saddleback Church which purchased 18,000 tickets at seven
theatres, doing everything they can to ensure that The Passion of Christ will
be a smash hit amongst Christians and "seekers…
Here then are five reasons why I believe Evangelicals should not see or
recommend the Passion of Christ.
1) Its Origins: Even though Evangelicals are promoting The Passion of Christ,
it is not an Evangelical movie. As Mel Gibson, a devout Roman Catholic put it
so well; "It reflects my beliefs." The Passion of Christ is a Roman
Catholic movie, made by a Roman Catholic director, with Roman Catholic
theological advisers, which gained the endorsement of Pope John Paul II who
said after viewing it, "It is as it was."4 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:
"In his first nationally broadcast interview about his starring role in
Mel Gibson's much-anticipated film "The Passion of Christ," James
Caviezel - Gibson's Jesus - detailed on Friday the ordeal of filming the
Crucifixion scenes, noting that the overall experience prompted many in the
crew to convert to Catholicism."
...
"Noting "the amount of conversions on the movie," he said the
experience of filming Christ's story "really changed people's lives."
"Caviezel recalled telling Gibson, "I think it's very important that
we have mass every day - at least I need that to play this guy."
"I felt if I was going to play him I needed [the sacrament] in me. So
[Gibson] provided that."5
2) Its Script: Although it is widely thought that the script for the movie is
based entirely on the gospel according to John, this is not the case. The
script for The Passion of Christ contains much extrabiblical material, and is
based in part on a mystical Roman Catholic devotional work by an 18th century
German Nun (Sister Anne Emmerich) entitled The Dolorous Passion of Christ.
Gibson stated on EWTN that reading Emmerich's book was his primary inspiration
for making the movie. By introducing extrabiblical elements, not only does The
Passion of Christ change some of the theological emphases of the Biblical
account of Christ's crucifixion, but it will also create a false impression
amongst the very "seekers" that Evangelicals are trying to reach, that
things were said and done at the crucifixion that did not actually happen. For
Evangelicals, who would feel very uncomfortable with a version of the Bible
that put words into the mouth of Christ that He never spoke, to endorse a movie
that does the very same thing seems hopelessly inconsistent. Protestants
traditionally rejected the Apocrypha precisely because these books were
fabricated and contained inauthentic material, despite the fact that these
books might have been useful for evangelism. For modern evangelicals to embrace
a vehicle that is inauthentic in order to achieve evangelistic ends indicates a
serious decline in faithfulness.
The script for The Passion of Christ not only adds things that didn't occur in
the Bible, it cuts out other things that did. The most widely known example of
this is the important declaration, "His blood be on us and on our
children." (Matthew 27:25)…
The script of The Passion of Christ was specifically intended to link the
crucifixion of Christ with what Roman Catholics believe is the re-sacrificing
of Christ that occurs in the mass. Gibson's intent is to show us that the
sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar (the mass) are the same
thing. Protestant Evangelicals have historically rejected the idea that Christ
can be sacrificed again and declared it "abominable." Speaking of the
concept that the Crucifixion and the mass is the same thing, the Protestant
Westminster Confession declares:
"In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real
sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a
commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross,
once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the
same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most
abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation
for all the sins of his elect."8
3) Its Theology: Gibson's comment about the sacrifice of the altar and the
sacrifice of the cross shows the indispensable link in this movie between the
Catholic view of Christ's sacrifice and the portrayal of the Crucifixion in The
Passion of Christ. The fact that Evangelicals have uncritically endorsed it
speaks volumes about how far the Evangelical Protestant understanding of
Christ's death and the related subject of Justification have slipped since the
Reformation. In Roman Catholic theology the intense physical suffering of
Christ's Crucifixion is the focus along with the emphasis on physical
sacrifice. This is one of the reasons why in Roman Catholic iconography we have
so much imagery related to Christ's physical pain and that crucifixes show him
still suffering on the cross (the sacrifice of the mass means that Christ's
declaration that His once for all sacrifice is completed - "it is
finished" (John 19:30), never actually comes, and that His suffering has
to be constantly repeated). This emphasis on Christ's physical agony is
repeated in Roman Catholic devotional material, prayers, and of course the
Passion of Christ. The theology of the bible, however, points out to us that
the grand importance of Christ's crucifixion lay not in His physical suffering,
but in His once for all propitiation of God's wrath (1 John 4:10). 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.
Satisfying the justice of the Romans on a cross was comparatively easy;
thousands of condemned men and women including Spartacus and several of the
Apostles did that, but only Christ could satisfy the justice of God.
Also central to the Christian Gospel, but missing from The Passion of Christ,
is the concept of Christ's active obedience. Christ not only died for the sins
of His sheep on the cross but He established their righteousness through His
perfect obedience to God's Law. It is only if His passive obedience in dying on
the cross and His active obedience in keeping the law are imputed to believers
per 2 Cor. 5:21 that believers will be justified before almighty God. The
Passion of Christ does not even make any pretence of teaching the active
obedience of Christ, the entire notion of which is alien to Roman Catholic
theology. Therefore if Evangelicals intend to use this as a Gospel teaching
tool, they must understand that at best they are teaching only half a gospel,
and that the half they are teaching is defectively presented.
The sacrifice of Christ was a glorious event in which, in accordance with God's
plan, full satisfaction for sin was procured by Christ on behalf of His people
(Acts 2:43). The Passion of Christ leaves us with a vision of the sacrifice of
Christ that is only dolorous (Dolorous: Full of grief; sad; sorrowful; doleful;
dismal) and which puts into sharp relief the Roman Catholic notion not only of
the importance of Christ's agony, but that of Mary in "offering her
Son." In an interview with Zenit, the Roman Catholic News Service, Father
Thomas Rosica, the priest who oversaw World Youth Day 2002 and its Way of the
Cross through the streets of Toronto, illustrated how The Passion of Christ, in
keeping with Roman Catholic theology, uses extrabiblical content to massively
exaggerate the role of Mary:
"One scene, in particular, was very moving. As Jesus falls on the Way of
the Cross, there is a flashback to his falling on a Jerusalem street as a
child, and his mother running out of the house to pick him up. The interplay of
Mary and Jesus in this film is moving, and reaches its apex in the scene of the
Pietà.
The Mother of the Lord is inviting each of us to share her grief and behold her
Son."9
This use of extra-biblical material, emphasis on physical suffering,
exaggeration of the role of Mary, and explicitly Roman Catholic theology should
not surprise us, however, as these are all hallmarks of the primary inspiration
for this movie: The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let me give two
examples of what I mean especially as concerns the replacement of physical pain
for the far greater agony of sin bearing:
"He will not stretch himself out, but we will help him;' they accompanied
these words with the most fearful oaths and imprecations, and having fastened a
rope to his right leg, dragged it violently until it reached the wood, and then
tied it down as tightly as possible. The agony which Jesus suffered from this
violent tension was indescribable; the words 'My God, my God,' escaped his
lips, and the executioners increased his pain by tying his chest and arms to
the cross, lest the hands should be torn from the nails."10
...
"The hour of our Lord was at last come; his death-struggle had commenced;
a cold sweat overspread every limb. John stood at the foot of the Cross, and
wiped the feet of Jesus with his scapular. Magdalen was crouched to the ground
in a perfect frenzy of grief behind the Cross. The Blessed Virgin stood between
Jesus and the good thief, supported by Salome and Mary of Cleophas, with her
eyes riveted on the countenance of her dying Son. Jesus then said: 'It is
consummated;' and, raising his head, cried out in a loud voice, 'Father, into
thy hands I commend my spirit.' These words, which he uttered in a clear and
thrilling tone, resounded through heaven and earth; and a moment after, he
bowed down his head and gave up the ghost. I saw his soul, under the appearance
of a bright meteor, penetrate the earth at the foot of the Cross. John and the
holy women fell prostrate on the ground."11
Emmerich's book is literally filled with scenes like those above, and includes
many extra-biblical sayings of Jesus which Sister Anne says she personally
heard in her visions.
4) Its Medium: Many Evangelical Pastors are hailing movies like The Passion of
Christ as part of a new and better way of spreading the Gospel:
"This is a window of opportunity we have. Here's a guy who's putting his
money into a movie that has everything to do with what we do," said pastor
Cory Engel of Harvest Springs Community Church in Great Falls, Mont.
"Churches used to communicate by having a little lecture time on Sunday
morning. People don't interact that way anymore. Here's a chance for us to use
a modern-day technique to communicate the truth of the Bible," the Rev.
Engel said."12
It is indeed true that we live in a highly visual and increasingly
anti-literate society that places a premium on sound bites and easily
assimilated visual imagery, but does this mean that we should abandon preaching
in favor of using movies or dramatic presentations? We need to remember that
the last time dramatic presentations replaced preaching as the main vehicle by
which the truth of the Bible was communicated was during the middle-ages when
the church refused to allow the translation of the Bible into common languages
and when in place of the preaching and teaching of God's word, the common
people were given visual presentations such as Passion Plays, statues, relics, and
icons. These things were designed, like most visual imagery, to play upon the
emotions and stimulate a response; but the ability to evoke an emotional
response via imagery or drama is not the same as successfully transmitting the
Gospel. The means that God has ordained for the transmission of the Gospel, was
neither drama, imagery, nor even "lectures" - it is preaching.
Preaching involves the communication of the Gospel in a way that patiently
convinces, rebukes, exhorts, and teaches (2 Timothy 4:2-4). The bible teaches
us the awesome importance of preaching and why it cannot be replaced by another
medium:
We must preach God's Word regardless of how unpopular it is because we are
commanded to do so: "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season.
Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time
will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own
desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves
teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned
aside to fables." (2 Timothy 4:2-4)
We must preach God's Word because it always accomplishes the purpose for which
it was sent: "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways
higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain
comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the
earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And
bread to the eater, So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall
not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall
prosper in the thing for which I sent it." (Isa.55:9-11)
God does not command us to produce dramatic presentations of Gospel themes, He
commands us to preach. Though this option was freely available to the Apostles
as they brought the Gospel to cities with amphitheaters and a long tradition of
using the dramatic arts to convey religious and moral themes to the populace
they did not do so. The wisdom of the Apostolic methodology has been borne out
by the fact that it was when the Gospel was being transmitted primarily by
plays and symbolism that true Christianity began to sink under the weight of
superstition. We are in danger of returning to precisely that state of affairs
by reviving the teaching methodology of the medieval church. Even though it was
produced in the 21st century, The Passion of Christ is identical in all
critical aspects to the Passion Plays of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle
Ages.
5) Its Main Character: Billy Graham in his endorsement of The Passion of Christ
said, "Every time I preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on
the screen will be on my heart and mind."13 This is unfortunately part of
the problem with all visual representations of Jesus. Although we may intend
for them only to have a role in teaching, they inevitably become part of our
worship and adoration. As a result of seeing this film James Caviezel, the
"Jesus" of The Passion of Christ, will become the figure countless
thousands if not millions of people think of when they worship Jesus Christ. To
do this is to fall into the trap of changing "the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man" (Romans 1:23)
and to violate the Second Commandment.
Every visual representation of Jesus is inevitably a lie. There are two main
reasons for this.
The first reason why all visual representations of Jesus are lies is because
the only wise God went to great lengths not to leave us with any description of
the physical appearance of His Son lest we fall into the sin of image making.
Therefore all of our representations of Jesus are inevitably speculations
usually based upon our own desires. We create an image of Jesus that says more
about the Jesus we want than the Jesus whom God sent.
For instance, isn't it remarkable that the Jesus of The Passion of Christ, as
in almost all physical representations of Christ, is tall, slim, and handsome?
Why should not The Son of David (Luke 18:38) have been a relatively small man
like His great ancestor? It never seems to have occurred to most image-makers
that Jesus could be relatively short, or stout, or even have had a receding
hairline. This is in spite of the fact that one of the few details the Bible
does give us about Christ's appearance is that "He has no form or
comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire
Him." (Is. 53:2b) The fact that we have any concept of what Jesus looks
like and that Gibson's Jesus looks like the traditional Jesus, is a testament
to the abiding impact of past iconography. While the Gospels, purposely leave
out any description of Jesus that we might use to construct an idol, people
have created an image of Jesus that has become almost an industry standard, and
it is solely for that reason rather than any basis in fact that audiences would
have been outraged had Gibson cast Danny DeVito and not James Caviezel in the
leading role.
The Second reason why all visual representations of Jesus are lies is that they
can never hope to represent the glory of Christ in His true nature. The best an
image of Jesus can do is to represent him as a man, and while Jesus was truly a
man, He was not merely a man. Jesus was also God, and no artist or filmmaker who
has ever lived could hope to create an image that captures the true Glory of
Jesus as God. While this may not appear to be a problem to us, the separation
of Christ's manhood from His deity is actually a grave heresy called
Nestorianism. We must not therefore attempt to separate what God has forever
joined together.
For the first four centuries of its existence the church did not use pictures
of Jesus as an aid to evangelism. This was despite the fact that they were
bringing the gospel to highly visual cultures that had always used imagery to
convey religious ideas. The initial movements towards making pictures of Christ
were initially strongly opposed, and the practice was formally condemned by the
church as late as 753 AD. Unfortunately, once they had taken hold of the public
imagination, the practice of making visible representations of Christ proved
difficult if not impossible to eradicate and gradually, pictures and dramatic
representations of Jesus became quite commonplace in the church. At the time of
the Reformation, Protestants overwhelmingly rejected the practice of making
images of Jesus as a clear violation of the Second Commandment. They also
rejected the notion that such images had a necessary role as "textbooks
for the laity" and then proved that notion false by producing generations
of other Protestants well versed in the word and familiar with their Savior
although they had never once owned or seen a representation of him.
Rather than visual imagery, they relied on the preaching of the Word to save
souls, and the gospel made great advances. If we return to the use of imagery
and begin endorsing movies like The Passion of Christ, we will be returning to
the very state of affairs the first Protestants struggled and died to reform.
We must not think that merely endorsing one form of visible representation of
Christ will not lead inevitably to others. For instance, it is impossible to
make a coherent argument against the use of the crucifix in teaching the Gospel
if we have already endorsed the use of a movie that portrays the crucifixion.
Merely because one display is static and the other moving does not change their
essential nature at all. The Passion of Christ is in essence, an animated
Crucifix…”