|
"Take
Heed" Ministries
|
|
Cecil Andrews, PO BOX 13, Ballynahinch, BT24 8AL, Northern Ireland. Telephone/Fax 028 9756 5511. E-MAIL - takeheed@aol.com WEBSITE - http://www.takeheed.net |
|
Carnmoney Presbyterian Church and ‘The Passion of The Christ |
In the Autumn 04 Issue 11 edition of ‘The Word’ – the magazine of Carnmoney Presbyterian Church – there is an article on page 12 dealing with the movie ‘The Passion of The Christ’. The article is written by David Ferguson who is listed on page 1 as being a member of a 9-strong Editorial Team. Herewith is the full text of the article:-
‘It’s been a little
while since the release of this Mel Gibson film, but I think that even now I
would be jumping the gun if I suggested that opinions about it have begun to
mellow. Jews are still hot under the collar about
Are these criticisms
valid though? Let’s take them one at a time. The film covers a very short
period: from Christ’s prayers in
Secondly, Mel Gibson
is a Roman Catholic. It isn’t the least bit surprising that he should be
interested in having, every so often, a quick glance at events through the eyes
of Mary. I’m sure that any number of Protestants have, like Gibson, read the
scriptures and wondered what Mary must have been feeling as she watched her son
being tortured and murdered. It isn’t pro-Catholic to wonder.
The violence is a
more difficult issue. Yet even there it’s not hard to see where Gibson is
coming from. He wanted to show that Jesus was a real man who suffered real pain
for us; and that would be defeated by sanitising the story. In any case it is a
bit hypocritical of our society to complain about violence when it has been our
steady diet for years on end, from the lorry-loads of dead soldiers, gangsters,
cowboys and Indians in the films of ther Forties and Fifties, all the way to
the horribly realistic thrillers and action movies of the present day. Judged
against some of these, Gibson’s film would have to be pretty graphic to have
any shock value.
As for the problems
arising from entertainment mixing with religion, this is not a new issue.
Hundreds of years ago many of the Puritans disapproved of the theatre and even
of printed fiction. More recently being “good living” often meant not going to
the cinema. Given that Mel Gibson wanted to tell this story couldn’t he have at
least stuck to scripture and not added in bits of his own? Well, the scriptures
don’t give every single detail of those last 24 hours; just the ones the Gospel
writers thought were important. This means that directors and actors have no
option but to fill in the blanks themselves and ask questions like, “What
happened between this passage and that one? Why did Jesus say that at that
particular moment? What tone of voice did he use when he said such and such a
line?”…and so on. Even the minister has to consider things like these when he
reads aloud from scripture on Sunday mornings. Show business has a wayof
creeping in no matter how you try to keep it out. So if even preaching can
sometimes have a theatrical element, why can’t the movie theatre preach now and
again?
Through a past connection with Carnmoney Presbyterian Church that will soon become obvious I have today sent the following letter to the editor of their church magazine in the hope that he might print it in their next issue of ‘The Word’ by way of response. This is the full text of my letter.
Dear Editor,
Although I am not a member
of Carnmoney Presbyterian Church, perhaps the fact that I was married in it
some 17+ years ago may qualify me to pen a response to the article by David
Ferguson on ‘The Passion of The Christ’ [The Word – Issue
11]. David refers to 3 criticisms that have been voiced in
relation to this movie. The first is the charge of it being Anti-Semitic.
Here David’s analysis is quite right. Any
movie that depicts the Biblically recorded facts concerning the involvement of
both Jews and Roman Gentiles in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ can
hardly be viewed as being Anti-Semitic and the ultimate truth is
that everything that unfolded was according to “the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God” [Acts 2:23].
The second criticism was
that the movie was viewed in David’s words by ‘Many
Protestants, especially here in Ulster…as a piece of pro-Catholic propaganda’.
David’s response to that is worded ‘Mel Gibson is a Roman
Catholic. It isn’t the least bit surprising that he should be interested in
having every so often a quick glance at events through the eyes of Mary. I’m
sure that any number of Protestants have, like Gibson, read the scriptures and
wondered what Mary must have been feeling as she watched her son being tortured
and murdered. It isn’t pro-Catholic to wonder’.
David clearly
believes that anything allegedly ‘pro-Catholic’ is just Mel
Gibson’s attempt to unravel the mind of Mary during the events depicted and is
certainly not any attempt to foist Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma upon the
viewer. In response to that I should like to quote some comments from the Introduction
of a booklet called ‘A Guide to The Passion: 100 Questions About The
Passion of The Christ’. This booklet is published by a Roman
Catholic organisation called ‘Catholic Exchange’ and the
writer of the Introduction, Tom Allen [Editor &
President of ‘Catholic Exchange’] is a Roman Catholic. Mr Allen
wrote ‘I noticed early on the fervour with which so many Protestant
communities were preparing to use the film for evangelistic purposes…the irony
is that our Protestant brothers and sisters cannot adequately speak to many of
the issues and questions the film evokes because the film is so distinctly
Marian, so obviously Eucharistic, so quintessentially Catholic…The
film quite accurately links the sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of
the Mass. In doing so it faithfully depicts biblical and Catholic teaching’.
Any honest reading of the
portions underlined will show that in the eyes of Tom Allen this
movie most certainly is ‘pro-Catholic’. Before commenting upon
the 3rd criticism let me also comment on David’s view
of the non-Scriptural content of the movie where he basically excuses Mel
Gibson by giving him ‘artistic licence’ to ‘fill in the blanks’.
The problem that Christians have with this is two-fold. Firstly we are
commanded by God not to add anything to His Word [Proverbs 30:5-6] particularly
if the addition ends up either contradicting or misrepresenting His truth and
that is precisely what has happened in this movie. Just one example – Mary is
shown as sensing the nearness of a chained Jesus through a thick stone floor
that separates them – this ascribes unscriptural Godlike qualities to Mary. The
reality is that the unscriptural additions to the movie were not the product of
Mel Gibson’s ‘artistic licence’ because the second of the Christian’s two-fold
problem is that the unscriptural additions are in fact based mostly upon the
occultic ‘visions’ of a long-deceased Roman Catholic mystic nun called Anne
Catherine Emmerich that are recorded in her book ‘The Dolorous
Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ’ and as such they are positively dangerous
to the spiritual well being of any Christian.
The 3rd
criticism related to the violence and entertainment aspects of the movie and David
comments ‘It is a bit hypocritical of our society to complain
about violence when it has been our steady diet for years on end…So if even
preaching can sometimes have a theatrical element, why can’t the movie theatre
preach now and again. Concerning the violence it’s not so important in
this instance what ‘society’ thinks but rather what the word of
God says. God’s Word says very little that is graphic concerning the physical
sufferings endured by the Lord whereas Mel Gibson’s film concentrates in the
extreme upon them. Today millions around the world have crowded movie theatres
to view what was described by the secular Time magazine as ‘the
religious splatter-art film…a relentless, near pornographic feast of flayed
flesh’. In contrast we read in Luke 23:49 “And all his acquaintances
and the women that followed him from Galilee stood afar off, beholding
these things”. Concerning movie-depicted gratuitous violence God wants His
people to say “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes” [Psalm
101:3] and to heed Paul who wrote “whatsoever things are true,
whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever
things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things
are of good report; if there be any virtue and if there be any praise,
think on these things” [Philippians 4:8]. This movie fails many of these
Biblical pre-requisites.
As far as an entertainment
movie having a capability to ‘preach’ let me quote the valued
judgment of A W Tozer on this issue – writing on ‘The Menace of The
Religious Movie’ Mr Tozer said ‘Religious movies are mistakenly thought
by some people to be blessed of the Lord because many come away from them with
moist eyes…Men and women who are dedicated to sin and appointed to death may
nevertheless weep in sympathy for the painted actors and be not one bit the
better for it. The emotions have had a beautiful time but the will is left
untouched…The movie…is the introduction into the work of God of that which is
not neutral but entirely bad’. A W Tozer died in 1963 but “he
being dead yet speaketh” [Hebrews 11:4].
In conclusion let me say
that viewing a depiction of the crucifixion in graphic detail will not impart
saving truth for no movie can reveal the grief of Christ’s soul being made “an
offering for sin” [Isaiah 53:10] or the grace of imputed “righteousness”
[2 Corinthians 5:21]. Two walking home to Emmaus had watched the actual
‘Passion’ and spiritually they didn’t understand what had happened until a
‘stranger’ joined them and proceeded to ‘preach’ to them the Word of God and
only through that method did they receive spiritual enlightenment [Luke
24:13-32] and still today as we read in 1st Corinthians 1:21
the truth is that “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save
them that believe”.
Your servant for Christ