Mel Gibson is a Roman Catholic and his interest in making the film was sparked over a decade ago by the discovery of a book amongst a library he had purchased cheaply. The book, entitled The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich. The author was a nun, a mystic and a stigmatist. The book is an account of the conversations she had with Christ during her mystical experiences.
This book stimulated Gibson to look more closely at the Passion story and in doing so read the Old and New Testaments. Thus Gibson claims that the film is faithful to the Gospel accounts.
The making of the film, particularly the editing of the film, has not been without controversy. The Anti-Defamation league , which plays a leading role in the fight against anti-semitism in the US, is concerned that the film will unleash a wave of anti-semitic sentiment amongst cultural Christians as a result of some of the biblically-based script. Thus there have been moves to delete certain scenes from the script and various other suggestions to head off any anti-semitic feeling that may arise.
What have Christians made of this film? A large proportion of Evangelicals are fully supporting it. This is perhaps understandable. The much older film Jesus has been seen as a useful tool in evangelism in many nations. The Passion therefore follows in that vein. It perhaps represents an improvement on Jesus bringing with it a high budget, a quality cast and Hollywood production values. It has been reported that churches all over the US are booking tickets and planning to give them away to non-believers. Saddleback Church in California has reportedly block booked 18000 tickets. The drive here is to take full advantage of this evangelistic tool in order to see as many as possible come to faith in Christ and enter the Kingdom of God.
A second group takes issue with the more broadly evangelical group. With a tradition much more firmly rooted in the history of the Reformation, it sees in the use of this film a rehearsal of an old argument with the Roman Catholic Church over the use of images in worship. Such struggles influenced the content of the great 17th century confessional standards. The second commandment says,
You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, …
To this group, this command excludes the representation of Christ through any work of art, whether sculpture or painting. The modern argument extends to film. Modern theologians such as John Murray are appealed to in support. Murray, in his 1961 article Pictures of Christ has concluded that
… what is at stake in this question is the unique place which Jesus Christ as the God-man occupies in our faith and worship and the unique place which the Scripture occupies as the only revelation, the only medium of communication, respecting him whom we worship as Lord and Saviour. The incarnate Word and the written Word are correlative. We dare not use other media of impression or of sentiment but those of his institution and prescription. Every thought and impression of him should evoke worship. We worship him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God. To use a likeness of Christ as an aid to worship is forbidden by the second commandment as much in his case as in that of the Father and Spirit.
Thus even though the use of a film like The Passion may ‘work’ in that many may come to faith, the fact that a commandment is deliberately broken is sufficient to halt its use. The fact that there are conversions is put down to the fact that God is gracious in spite of our sin, but that ‘success’ in evangelism must not be seen as divine approval. God’s work must be done with God’s means.
A third group is found at the more ‘high church’ end of the evangelical spectrum. However, this group sees the film not as an evangelistic tool, nor as blatant idolatry, but as art. It is a valid human method of telling a story which all can enjoy and learn from. But it should not be used as a means of evangelism or worship. This group is the least excited by the film’s release but simply looks forward to a good experience at the flicks.
So what do I make of this film? I confess to some unsettledness in this area. I am a member of a church that fits in group 1, my early Christian years were spent in a church that is in group 2, and I think there may be some 'wriggle room' in the views of group 3!
Let me say straight away that my default position on this is that of group 2. I do believe that the second commandment is difficult to avoid unless, possibly, one takes a dispensational view of Scripture. In other words the NT trumps the OT and since, in such a person’s opinion, the Decalogue is not clearly republished, the command has no continuing relevance to the modern day. Needless to say, that is not my view. The Decalogue continues as a ‘rule of life’ for the disciple of Christ. The 2nd commandment remains relevant to the modern situation.
How does it apply? Well, in two ways. Firstly, as an evangelistic tool we are using it in order that people will come to faith in Christ. In other words, so that new people will begin to worship God as redeemed and restored creatures. This seems to be an idolatrous, use the film as an idol to stimulate worship? Secondly, some Christians might be tempted to watch the film in order to better understand what Christ went through on the cross. It is seen as an aid to faith so that they can better love Christ. But this, it seems to me, is an idolatrous use of the film. It is precisely the issue that evoked God’s jealous anger in Exodus 32. God has not changed.
Thus, in spite of the potential numerical gains, evangelistic or devotional use of the film is excluded. Group 1 must err significantly in its support of this film. It must learn that the necessary and vital pursuit of Jesus’ Great Commission must also be controlled by the means given elsewhere in Scripture.
What of Group 3? I have to confess to being on less sure ground here. But here are some thoughts anyway. To treat the film simply as art, though it can be done, will be virtually impossible for the Christian. As one who, by definition, has following Christ as the goal of life, and for whom Christ forms a substantial proportion of conscious thought, the Christian will not be able to exclude the limited representations presented to him or her in the film. For example, in corporate worship, who would be able to exclude those visual images of Christ from thought while singing about the cross? The temptation to use the images in worship for many will simply be too great. Thus the Christian is led into sin.
On one discussion list I read, a contributor presented a very good argument against his own ‘Group 2’ position: Surely Moses did not sin when, coming down the mountain, he saw the Golden Calf? Was the seeing of the image idolatry? Clearly it was not. In the same way then, is the seeing of an image of Christ in a film idolatry? Clearly not in itself. But I would suggest that Moses could easily dismiss a Golden Calf, used to represent the infinite and eternal God, as so much nonsense. He could never be tempted to use the mental image in worship. This could not so easily be said of the moving, gritty, emotion-laden images of Christ in a movie. They would simply be too tempting for many. I realise that my argument admits a degree of judgment in assessing the appropriateness of seeing the film. A ‘strong’ Christian might survive the temptation, whereas a ‘weak’ Christian would not. But I would suggest that the number of the ‘strong’ is very small, and therefore I believe that seeing the film in the interests of ‘art’ would be damaging.
So where does that leave us? Reasons of evangelism, devotion, and art are all excluded. The film must therefore, in my view, be avoided.
No comments:
Post a Comment