Everytime I preach, the things I saw will be on my heart and mind.
~ Billy Graham
In terms that words alone cannot articulate, "The Passion" homes in on the full value of the ransom Christ paid for all of us in the greatest demonstration and act of love ever exhibited.
~ David Limbaugh
The goal of the movie is to shake modern audiences by brashly juxtaposing 'the sacrifice of the cross’ with ‘the sacrifice of the altar’ -- which is the same thing.
~ Mel Gibson
__________________________________________
[save/print this essay in MS Word format]
The following comments (along with their author) are a work in progress. I write stream-of-consciousness, so be duly warned of rabbit trails and "then again" trains of thought if you should choose to read the whole thing. There are some resource links at the end that might be of more beneficial use.
Jim Caviezel in makeup is no depiction of deity. I won't say it's not an attempted depiction of deity (because I do not speak for Gibson), but I would not walk into a movie theater with the expectation to see God's likeness. A speculative likeness of the human form of Jesus? Perhaps. But depicting the spiritual portion of anyone is impossible. Jesus is indeed wholly divine and wholly human, but no artist pretends to attain unto a perfect-in-every-point likeness. Why is it that we begin to understand this concept in the realm of literature (with allegories and analogies) but refuse to carry it over to music and art and drama? When we encounter a descriptive metaphor, we don't expect it to match up with its antecedent identically, with absolute similarity in every point. Rather, a metaphor is intended to highlight certain aspects of the subject, making a characteristic that already exists stand out in high relief so that we may exalt that which, or he/she who owns the characteristic in reality.
Oh, but expressing our affections in artistic endeavors, and pointing out certain admirable attributes to be emulated and praised -- that’s worship! Or is it? Lewis and Piper would call outward expressions of praise the culmination of enjoyment, but are they to be equated necessarily with worship? Theologically, is there so much a difference between magnifying and worshipping? I think there is. Perhaps one is a subset of the other, and perhaps both are magnificently interlinked, but I don’t think they ought to be used interchangeably. Maybe we need to qualify “worship” as “corporate worship” or “formal worship” when we use it in sense of not wanting to grievously err by creating additives to God or His gospel.
I say there is a difference between general magnifying/glorifying God and conscious worship of God because whatever we do, whether it’s eating or drinking, or putting 2 or 2000 coins into an offering plate, or painting or sleeping or baking or jump-roping or going to movies, we ought to be doing it to the glory of God. Everything about a believer is to point to Jesus. Like creation itself, this kind of glory is not meant to be comprehensive, salvific revelation of God. It’s just general revelation, a testimony to His works and His all-pervasive reign (since He is sovereign Lord over not just religion but every aspect of our lives, including the fine arts that so reflect and set the pace of our culture). We are come to declare the beauty of the Lord.
IS VISUAL IMAGERY AN APPROPRIATE MEANS FOR CONVEYING THE GOSPEL?
It is very true that Passion plays and films and Sunday School flannelgraphs and (even empty) crucifixes are incapable of the stand-alone conveyance of God’s person and work as it has been divinely-revealed in the living/written/spoken Word. As mere tokens and enactments, they therefore must limit the perception of God. This is definitely a concern. In his book The Ten Commandments, G. Campbell Morgan would agree:
In the instant that man sets up a representation of any description to help him to realize God, he denies that which is essential in God. Suppose that it is an image, a picture, or some system of worship, concerning which he says, ‘this is intended as an aid to my worship of the one God.’ See what he has done! The image, the picture, or the system of worship is limited. The essential fact of God is that He is limitless, that He is eternal, that He is self-existent, there being no end to His being, and no limit to His power. Limitlessness lies at the heart and center of the thought of God, and the moment a man makes an image, he denies the essence of God. For that reason God forbade that there should be the making of any images; for, not only is the image false, it is misleading (Morgan, 28).
I spent nearly five years in the Free Presbyterian denomination of the Church and gained with them a much clearer and sobered understanding of the timeless truths of what the Ten Commandments reveal about our high and holy, unchanging God and about our unchanging responsibilities to do justly and love mercy and walk humbly before Him. I have known what it is to be confronted with the accrued wisdom of the Westminster Divines and the heritage of scores of godly Puritans and Reformers whose interpretations of the second commandment are often scoffed at today. I have known what it is to be bound by my conscience to turn my eyes from depictions of Christ, to become physically sick over the implied insistence that aids to worship are hunky-dory-a-ok and the pragmatic acceptance of the icons that I felt robbed glory from my Lord.
Pragmatism still makes me physically ill. In seeking to make God’s absolute Truth my absolute reference point, I keep returning to Scripture. The second commandment (Exodus 20:4-6) addresses both the object and manner of worship –- since it condemns the manufacture of images with intent to worship. Moses’ brother Aaron sinned and aided the Israelites in sinning, not against the first commandment, but against the second: they made a graven image in order to worship the true Jehovah God (crafting a tangible pool of their own resources to worship along the same lines that the pagans worshipped their idols). Aaron did not craft the calf and say, “here, worship this fertility god of the pagans.” He said, “here is tailor-made-Jehovah-just-the-way-you-like-Him and now you can have a seen god like all the other nations get to have.” Sin, in manner and object (your-way worship rather than God’s way).
On the one hand, under normal circumstances, a novel-reader or a movie-watcher is able to suspend his disbelief for the duration of the movie. For instance, if I see Bruce Willis play in “Tears of the Sun” and turn around and watch him play in “Unbreakable,” I can shift mental gears and place him in that role. I understand that he is stepping out of Bruce Willis skin and the skin of all his prior roles and depicting the character at hand. This understanding that the actor is not the real person, this ability to believe that a very familiar face is portraying someone new -- this is the same capacity we take into all fiction, whether it’s a divinely-inspired parable that might or might not be based on a true historical event, or whether it’s a made-from-scratch story that could never take place in reality as we know it. It’s the nature of things.
We are imaginative creatures, and we know the code. We understand that fiction is not a lie. We understand that an actor goes home at night to some huge mansion in Hollywood, not to a rock bed in the caves of the Dark Crystal or the deserts and forests of Star Wars. We know what to do with hypothetical scenarios. It’s a given. And if Jim Caviezel were a better-known actor, it would prove my point. For instance, if Tom Cruise or Keanu Reeves had been chosen for the role of Jesus, most viewers would not think twice about accepting the image for the duration of the movie and later discard that image as a mere copy of a spiritual reality.
On the other hand, note that Gibson did not cast a familiar face for the role of Jesus, and I would like to suggest that was a deliberate choice. Unfortunately, most viewers (although they’ve heard the name of Christ) are also very unfamiliar with the extent of Jesus’ physical sacrifice. And there are other things we assume about movies. For instance, if it’s a historically-based movie, we assume that we are getting the exact portrayal of events the way they happened. Gibson has indeed stuck pretty close, if selectively, to the biblical accounts. If this were a movie about World War II, he should probably earn an award just for devoted adherence to the actuality of events. But the nature of these particular events were far more than physical only.
In spite of the Pope’s statement that the depiction “was as it was,” there is no way that Gibson could have depicted the true spiritual extent of Christ’s suffering. How many thieves were crucified over the years at that place, with relatively the same gore and abuse and sensational drama? Jesus’ cross-work was not the full extent of His sacrifice. His sinless life, the spiritual and emotional agony, the supernatural aspects of His vicarious death -- not to mention the resurrection! -- none of these could possibly be adequately depicted, and the end result must be a reduction.
The nature of audiovisual media is that of immediate recognition and vivid imagery. Often we come away from a movie thinking that our introduction to a previously-unfamiliar subject has been comprehensive and accurate, or at least adequate. How many of you watched “Shadowlands,” for instance, and were then satisfied with your understanding of the life and work of C.S. Lewis? Whose portrayal of Lewis did you prefer, if you watched both versions of the movie? Would you rather recall an image of Joss Ackland or Anthony Hopkins? Do you feel confident describing Lewis’ theology based on the exposure you got in the movie(s)?
ARE THE PROTESTANT / ROMAN CATHOLIC DISTINCTIONS A CONCERN?
I do understand the thin ice on which Mel Gibson walks. This is not just some movie with a storyline that presupposes the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and providential watch-care over His people. It’s not just a movie that could be construed as an allegory about the divide between physical and spiritual realities. This is not a movie that implies a Christian worldview. It’s a movie ABOUT actual historical and theological truths. Yes, Gibson is engaging in society’s current dialogue about what is true, using what he knows in a cultural vehicle to carry a counter-culture message. I applaud him for imaginatively and doggedly going out on a limb to confront his audience with what he believes. Gibson has taken a lot of flak. It makes me sad that he and I are so diametrically opposed about the sufficiency of the Christ we both claim to worship and about the efficacy of His mediation and one-time sacrifice to reconcile God with men.
ARE AUDIO/VISUAL DEPICTIONS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST
LEGITIMATE FOR INSTRUCTION AND EXPRESSION?
...OR ARE THEY INHERENTLY SINFUL?
I think my hesitations about interpreting and applying the second commandment to depictions of Jesus come from my limited mind’s inability to combine certain apparent facts. Like how God created us as visual, imaginative creatures and our God-given creative minds long to express and publish what we love in order to create within others a longing for the same. Regardless of how the arts may be abused and perverted by unbelievers (and they are), Christian artists ought not be using their skills to acquire glory for themselves, for their books, for their paintings, for their music, for their dramatic productions. Rather, Christians should seek to contrive ways to magnify Jesus with everything at their disposal (including their talents and gifts and imaginations) and point people to the gospel (not the same thing as a substitute for gospel/evangelistic tool inherently).
I always wondered at the assumptive broadbrushing of the early artists' motivations -- were they all in it for propagation of false doctrine, for graven images to worship, for money, for self-adulation? I have a hard time believing that. We write what we love. Little children love to try to draw Jesus pictures. It's natural to picture people/things we love. That doesn't mean we're worshipping the picture itself or leaning on the picture as a crutch to help us worship.
To suggest, however, that Billy Graham’s preaching from now on will be somehow enhanced because of those images in his mind -- that is disturbing. To buy into the proposition (implicit or explicit) that the Word is a less-effective conduit and that a sightless faith is inferior to a religion which sports visible accoutrements -- that brinks on blasphemy. To think you could use an emotional jolt to serve as an impetus to more meaningful reflection -- is to say that you are reliant upon something substantial to boost your spiritual relationship with Christ.
IS ICONOLATRY A VALID CONCERN?
Mel Gibson’s company name, Icon Productions, is not merely word-play. This movie is an intentional icon. It is being lauded as the next most effective gospel tool since Jesus’ actual death. It is being heralded as a landmark in sacramental art. Iconolatry (the veneration of icons, as Dr. Alan Cairns defines it) manipulates God's WAY of being worshipped -- 1. it evidences the pagan mentality the Israelites started to bank on, insisting that they needed a tangible "version of" Jehovah -- 2. it encourages worship of a graven image at all instead of the spiritual reality.
Are depictions of Christ inherently wicked? I saw the movie "Gospel of John" twice in the last three weeks. I was struck with it from a Bible-as-(supernatural)-literature standpoint. The movie script was comprised entirely of Scripture, including all the "difficult for you to understand" things in John's account. And it was three hours long. Now, when I pray, I don't think of Henry Ian Cusick's face. In fact, one thought that crossed my mind was that the real Jesus could've looked like any one of the twelve disciple-actors, or as different from them as they were from each other. How many thousands of depictions of Jesus have crossed my eyes since grade school? Myriad images of Caucasian men, African-American men, Latino men, emaciated men, effeminate men, muscular men, and so on. In all honesty I would need to confess that, at least before I started thinking about the second commandment, I do remember calling up a particular image of Christ (not the effeminate ones -- just the ones I thought were “just” representations) in order to conjure up a meaningful emotion or worshipful thought about Jesus. I can see now the wrong-doing in that. It’s perfectly understandable to want a photograph of your mother; but when your mother is actually present in the room, it would be very rude to start talking to the photograph in place of the person.
Not once, however, do I remember being led to believe this must really be what Jesus actually looked like. Am I so strange in that? We understand that the essence of any picture is that it is a likeness. That means it is not the same in every point of similarity. We understand that, like the limits of a mirror, the limits of any image causes it to fall short of reality. An image is a metaphor that points out / glorifies certain characteristics in order to cause us to meditate on the reality they represent.
Jesus really was embodied and seen of men (yes, that's profane/making him common -- and that's the wonder of the incarnation at all) and His followers did have mental images of him in their heads when they remembered Him at the Lord's supper, when they prayed, when they walked around. But did they worship those mental images? Not if they were worshipping in spirit and truth. Did they rely on those memories to help them “get in the mood” for worship? (or don’t we like to use the phrase “to prepare our hearts?”) That is a harder question to answer. I don’t think they did this to any more of an extent than the rest of us are/were commanded to do when we were commanded to remember Jesus’ body and blood, His person and work, and to walk accordingly.
I'm against iconolatry because I'm against the veneration of representations and images and relics as though they contained any intrinsic value. I'm certainly against idolatry because I'm against the worship of other gods and the wrong manner of worshipping the one true God.
I’m not in support of “The Passion” movie as an entity in and of itself. While I would love to see the acting and cinematography because I’ve heard fantastic things, and while I can understand Gibson's sincere (albeit misled and potentially dangerous) desire to express certain aspects of the gospel, I recognize that the written and spoken Word is the ordained medium for the gospel's conveyance. The movie may indeed contain truth, and it may or may not deviate from Scripture, but that does not make it a substitute for the gospel. It can be only a limited perspective, and because of the other factors combined with that, I cannot in good conscience support it. I'm afraid that understanding (that the movie accurately portrays the whole truth as a stand-alone entity) is an inevitable effect of this production, regardless of what Gibson intends or what people insist when they go there. Just listening to the quotes from the previews indicates that the movie is an experience that will change my perspective of Jesus Christ -- a concept which seems very desirable, but which borders on sacrilege.
Since all truth is God’s truth, is there not a possibility that viewers will glean general, if not special, revelation? Maybe they won’t pick up on the resurrection, but they might get an inkling of a clue about sacrificial substitution. But I can't guarantee that the liberty/responsibility with which I come to a movie depicting Jesus and a portion of the gospel will be shared by any significant percentage of the 75% of Americans who say they are going to go view the movie.
Even those who are longtime Christians and who have been mightily used of God are mistaking the movie itself for the evangelistic tool rather than the window of opportunity surrounding the interest in the movie. Again, G. Campbell Morgan reminds us of the sometimes-subtle distinctions: “In all these things, men tell us that they worship God; but they are trying to worship Him through some supposed expression of Him which they have made for themselves” (Morgan, 29-30). I agree that we should take advantage of this time and the piqued interest. But the movie itself cannot be viewed as a substitute for the gospel. I know that Gibson said it was not intended as such, but I don't think he can guarantee that people will walk out of that theater and NOT equate their recent acquaintance with one director's version of the events with the biblical and historical and supernatural reality of what took place at Calvary.
Film critic Roger Ebert, who was raised Catholic, insists that this was the most violent movie he has ever seen. He adds, “What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.”
So, I’m leaving it. Does that mean that I think we should throw all the babies out with the bathwater? No. I can’t call the movie itself a window of opportunity. But I can call the talk and interest surrounding it a window of opportunity.
Several years ago I was a counselor at a Christian camp. One week a certain evangelist was the designated speaker, and we had a number of problems with the results of his methodology. Night after night, we found the same campers were coming for counseling, still not sure about the state of their souls before God. Finally, we humbly went to the man with our concerns about the confusion that his words and methods were creating, but we were kind of dismissed. He said that his approach has worked all over the world and X number of “results” had come of it. (Unfortunately, he was not of the generation who has to live out the long-term results of those kind of methods; we were.) But one of our leaders told us something very wise, I think. He told us it didn’t matter whether we agreed exactly with what brought them "down the aisle" -- if they were there and confused and seeking counsel, it was indicative of some kind of problem. And we knew how to deal with problems -- take them to the Word. Something they didn’t have to guess about or look to their own works and prayers and understanding. An absolute reference point. Something God-centered, not man-derived. Something solid rather than sensational. That was our responsibility -- to take the opportunity to deal with the truth-seeker according to the Truth.
The train is coming to town regardless. People are going to watch the movie regardless. We don't have to get on board, but we can clear the tracks or change the rails' direction or shout and hold signs up for the benefit of people on the platform. I would love to see/hear some real gospel preaching follow-up this movie. Some real copies of the gospel accounts passed out in the parking lots, etc. While I don't think we're legitimate in calling the movie an evangelistic tool in and of itself (i.e., I’m not sure about buying out a theater and showing the movie in place of the gospel and throwing our lots in with Gibson's blessed-by-Mass-every-day-of-production version), I think we ought to take advantage of the season of increased interest.
I'm still thinking. But I have a ton to think about. In summary:
As I mentioned on Portland Studios' blog, I think there are three main issues at hand for Bible-allegiant Christians, particularly Bible-allegiant Christians who want to use the faith and affinities and imaginations and skills God's given us to be salt and light in our world for His glory and man's best good.
1. Q: Are depictions of the Christ of the Godhead legitimate or wicked? (and is there a difference between doing it ourselves or viewing that which is done)
A. I don’t think I would ever want to assume the responsibility of portraying Christ in visual form. I’m not sure I’m ready to condemn those who would not interpret/apply the second commandment on this point. I think whether we view it or not depends on the individual and his conscience before God as a result of personal study in the Word. Various background experiences and propensities could affect how a particular person can or cannot handle visual depictions of Christ.
2. Q: Is a film production involving unbelievers an appropriate medium for conveying the gospel message? (and is that really what Gibson has intended)
A. I don’t think film is the be-all/end-all evangelistic flying carpet, and especially not this one. I think Gibson’s stated intentions are that he is not trying to replace the gospel but is trying to retain accuracy.
3. Q: To what extent should Bible-believing Christians consider the craze over the movie an opportunity to evangelize true seekers? (i.e. Is this a point at which we can engage in the cultural dialogue, and, if so, must we compromise ecumenically to do so)
A. The exposure and press attention and apparent willingness of many are factors that make for an apparent opportunity to help people seeking truth to find truth, but the “craze” over the movie ought to be distinguished from the movie itself as the opportunity.
As for my individual decision, I'll admit I'm not willing to find out how weak I am when it comes to retaining lasting impressions that may affect how I view Christ hereafter. Paul Harvey and Billy Graham and Roger Ebert don't seem to be able to shake off the imagery and take away only the spiritual truths. I had already determined (based on the emotional reviews I was reading) that I would go alone if I went, because I knew I might lose it emotionally. Which is self-revealing because I realized that I was expecting it to be a spiritual energy fix. My thought was that an emotional experience might do me good. But that temptation undermines the beauty of union with the unseen Christ. When I honestly evaluate my primary reasons for wanting to go, they are small in comparison to the importance of an authentic, pure walk with the Reality.
__________________________________________
[save/print this essay in MS Word format]
________________________________
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, G. Campbell Morgan ("The Second Commandment," pp. 25-35).
DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS, Alan Cairns ("Iconolatry," p. 183).
Westminster Confession of the Faith, Longer Catechism, question 109.
BELIEVERS’ OPINIONS:
Five Reasons Not to Go See “The Passion of the Christ” ~Andrew J. Webb
My Protest Against the Evangelical Ecstasy Over Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” ~ Bob Bixby
SermonAudio.com article
"The Passion" Revisited ~ David Limbaugh
Two Concerns about “The Passion” ~ Phil Johnson (Executive Director of GRACE TO YOU ministries)
PCAnews.com articles --
The Second Commandment and the Passion of Christ
The Passion of Christ
MEDIA LINKS
A.O. Scott of The New York Times
CNN re: Gibson’s Passion
ABC’s 4-page article following the Sawyer/Gibson interview
Roger Ebert’s review of “The Passion” in The Chicago Sun-Times
FOX re: Gibson’s Passion
WorldNetDaily.com
Miscellaneous articles
The discussion has MOVED.
http://www.karagraphy.com/forums
(if you desire...)