Over the last two months, the worldwide Christian community
is abuzz, with a new controversial film by Mel Gibson entitled
"The Passion of The Christ" with famous actors and
actresses like Jim Caviezel (who was well received by the pope
in the Vatican recently), Morgenstern and Monica Belucci (who
acted in the R(A) movie "Irreversible" and other
soft porn movies). One lady died of heart attack while watching
"The Passion of the Christ" in the US. This movie has polarised the evangelical world into two.
Eminent
heavyweights on both sides have given reasons for and against
the movie. Those who are for it included celebrated men like
the pope, Billy Graham, James Dobson, Rick Warren, Campus
Crusade for Christ, Paul Crouch, Jack Hayford, Chuck Colson,
Tim LaHaye, Southern Baptist Convention, Promise Keepers,
Jerry Falwell, Robert Schuller, John Piper, (and others as it is not
exhaustive). On the flip side, we have Peter Masters, A N
Martin, Alan Morrison, Andrew Webb, Dennis Gibson, Iain
Murray, Denis Shelton, John Robbins, C.D. Thomson, SH Tow and
others. Some ministers and members in some churches and
denominations are either indifferent or are split on this matter. Phones calls and
emails have come in enquiring about the biblical stand on this
matter. Convincing and cogent reasons have been advanced by
both sides that are worthy of our consideration. The following
are some of the possible reasons in favour of the movie to be
noted.
1. Some people may be talking about the Lord Jesus Christ
in open public debate.
2. There is some semblance of truth in the movie according
to the biblical records.
3. It may have got some people thinking and asking
questions about the Christian faith.
4. It may provide some opportunities to talk to people
about the Lord and His death (who will not read the Bible) and
possibly a tool for evangelism as well. (Some have called it
the greatest evangelistic tool in 2,000 years).
5 There is the technical state of the art cinematic
portrayal of Christ with a Christian theme that augurs well
for an excellent and brilliant show satisfying the demands of
any movie fan.
6 Some sympathizers may be emotionally
moved by the graphic violent and gruesome death of Christ and
may be prompted to seek to know about Him more and possibly
even accept Him as their Saviour.
7. Even if it is not accurate or absolutely true to the
Bible, there are still good morals to be learnt including
sacrifice, love, faith and hope from the movie by both
believers and non believers.
These are plausible reasons presented above for watching
the movie. Is it possible that the advantages of the movie so
called be outweighed by the grave disadvantages or demerits
mentioned below?
Consider the following prayerfully and carefully
1. The focus of this movie (it has got an M18 rating
which is the old R(A) when it hit the big screens here in
Singapore on 1 April 2004) is purportedly the last 12 hours of Christ before his
death and the playing up of the sadistic, violent and
grotesque physical suffering of Christ among other things. But
is this the main emphasis in the Bible (see Matt 27:26, 35)?
The Bible is primarily concerned with the spiritual suffering
and death of the Lord (Isa 53:1-7). The agony of bearing the
sin of the world upon Himself and the accompanying separation
from the Father (Luke 22:39-46). The first mention of the pain
of shedding His blood is not from the wounds to His body, but
the blood He sweat from the agony of His soul in Gethsemane
(Luke 22:44). The greatest pain expressed by Jesus on the
cross were the words, "My God, My God, why have You
forsaken Me?" (Matt 27:46) The Bible emphasizes the
spiritual suffering of the Lord (2 Cor 5:21) not withstanding
that the physical aspects which is also mentioned as well.
2. In re-enacting the death of Jesus this film does
something for which there is no Biblical mandate. One is
charged to remember properly and reverently the death of Jesus
in the Lord’s Supper, a sacrament and means of grace
instituted and sanctioned by God (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:26) and
not by any man-made re-enactment nor the encouragement of
casual and non-committal viewing of a multi million blockbuster entertaining
Hollywood movie in a secular theatre according to man‘s
fertile imaginations.
3. This movie or any re-enactment of the
crucifixion is a faulty and unapproved substitute for the
God-ordained method of presenting the Gospel to a sinful
world. It is not the way the Bible tells us to present the
pure and unadulterated Gospel. We are to present the Gospel
through the foolishness (medium and content) of gospel
preaching (1 Cor 1:21) and not through the worldly fanfare of
a secular movie no matter how well intentioned the directors,
producers or actors (or even viewers) may be.
4. This movie can lead to a plethora of spurious spiritual
experiences based upon emotions. (Billy Graham testified
honestly that when he prays, his mind would think of the actor
who is vividly displayed in the film. Is this a helpful
thing?) Watching a movie nonchalantly cannot bring a person to salvation. Our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ does not seek the sympathy of depraved
men through the physical portrayal of His suffering, He
demands and requires unreservedly our sincere and humble
evangelical repentance of our sins, faith and devotion to him
(Luke 9:23, 23:28) which this movie does not portrait.
5. The film undermines the Biblical doctrine of the
sufficiency of scripture (Rev 22:18-19.2Tim 3:16,17). Mel
Gibson, the ardent catholic director has admitted to filling in some details
from sources outside the Bible. Much of this extra biblical
material expresses Roman Catholic theology and the Latin Mass
which protestants based on holy scriptures are at variance
with (2 Cor 6:14-18).
6. The movie has the full potential of promoting ecumenism and consequently undermines the work of the 16th
century protestant reformation. (Mel Gibson boasts of a crew
and cast from 4 religious faiths to appeal to the worldwide
community.) It reinforces the concept of
religious pluralism and compromise, which says there are many
ways to God, each as good as the other (see Gal 1:8). As true
believers of Christ, we would distance ourselves from this
religious accommodation.
7. The film gives approval to a tangible corporeal sinful
man acting the part of the sinless Son of God, which according
to the Bible is totally unacceptable to God, to say the least
(cf John 14:9).
8. The film is a blatant violation of the Second
Commandment (Exod 20:4). That alone is sufficient reason to
reject it altogether. It is a graven image when God would have
no such visual representations made of Himself: Father or His
only begotten Son or the Holy Spirit. This is the most
compelling reason of it all not to support this movie from a
biblical perspective.
9. Produced at a staggering cost of US$25 million, it
brought in US$125.2 million in the five days of showing in
2,000 theatres in the US. Up to date this money churning
machinery has already racked in more than US$212 million and
it is not even screened in Asia and other parts of the world
yet. It is touted to be the movie (at least for the money if
not content) of the year, if not for the decade. 2 Tim 2:20,21
speak of clean sanctified vessels that are approved of God for
his use. Is the glorious and somber once and for all vicarious
atonement of the Son of God for guilty sinners to be used as a
lucrative spectacle for profit making purposes by men whose
salvation are questionable?
