First of all, I hope you noted the indefinite article in the title. I want you to know that I do not presume to speak for the entire Reformed community. This is my thoughts concerning the movie WITHOUT having seen the movie. That’s right. I haven’t seen the movie. But I have been observing people’s reactions to the movie with a great interest, and my observations have suggested a few things I think are worth considering.

To be frank, I have mixed feelings about the movie. On one hand, it is a wonderful conversation generator. Within my life time I don’t think there has been a time when both believers and non-believers alike have had an opportunity to talk about Christ’s passion in such a manner. (From now on, I’ll abbreviate the movie as PC and “passion” will refer to the actual historical event of Christ’s sufferings.) It seems to me there is potentially a valuable opportunity here to engage non-believers in a profitable conversation. So that is the positive side of the movie.

1). On the other hand, I see many pitfalls of the movie – enough that I think church leaders should be aware to guide their congregations through the movie. The first is the most obvious. Gibson seems to spend a great deal of time with the physical sufferings of Christ, which, of course, is an important part of the passion. And yet a proper understanding of the gospel requires that we understand not only the physical sufferings of our Savior, but the spiritual. The central part of his suffering was when the sinless One bore the filth of our sin and was thereby abandoned by the Father and separated from him, for that is the torment of hell our Savior underwent for us. “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” is a question of anguish that stems from the Father’s wrathful judgment, not primarily in reference to the physical pain he bore. It is here that Gibson seems to have missed the point entirely, not to mention the throng of evangelicals. Yes, evangelicals!

2). Secondly, I have concerns about Gibson’s Catholicism. CNN has been airing old interviews with Gibson, and I was surprised to find that he is a Catholic ardently opposed to Vatican II. Vatican II was Rome’s effort at “reformation” which took place during the 60s. It was decided at Vatican II to make a number of changes to Roman Catholicism, such as no longer holding mass in Latin, but in vernacular, as well as softening their stance against Protestants. Until Vatican II Rome’s stance was much of that of Council of Trent where, in response to the Protestant Reformation, they decried justification by faith and etc. It was only after Vatican II that Rome started calling Protestants as “separated brethren,” and this not because they had repented of their many heresies. Gibson, it turns out, built a chapel in his property where mass is done in Latin. And if he is as against as Vatican II as he says he is, one has to wonder what is his understanding of the gospel. If it is the traditional understanding held by Rome since Trent, it means his salvation is essentially “faith informed by love” - that is, one is justified because he has been first sanctified. In layman’s terms, salvation by works. This is a serious concern for professing evangelicals, and I cannot understand how so many evangelicals seem to think PC is the best thing that’s happened since...well, you fill in the blank. In the end, Gibson’s Catholicism might be glaring or subdued in PC. But church leaders better beware! So many “evangelicals” seem to think the moral of the passion of the Christ is that Christ left an example of self-less and self-sacrificial for us to follow and imitate. This is Rome speaking through the lips of evangelicals. Christ did not die to leave an example for us to follow. Christ died because we could never, and we would never, follow his examples, his perfect obedience to the Law and faithfulness to the Covenant Lord.

3). Thirdly, I have concerns about what is surely a violation of the Second Commandment. I know, many evangelicals who fight to keep a monument of the Ten Commandments in the court house have virtually abandoned it in their faith and in their church. After all, one can walk into a local evangelical Christian book store and find half the store filled with pictures of Jesus, and a prominent local Christian school has a large picture of Jesus painted on their campus. The sad consequence of these blasphemies is that I have grown up unable to escape from these “pictures” of Jesus. And how often does this effeminate man with wavy, flowing hair come to my mind in my devotions? Who will have mercy on my poor soul? And who will have mercy on the millions of people all over the world who will think of the actor - his appearances, gestures, facial expressions, etc. - when they think of Christ? For years I have been a big fan of J.R.R. Tolkien’s books. One reason I liked them so much is that his superb imaginations used to allow each reader to imagine in his own heart the beauties of Middle Earth. But after seeing Peter Jackson’s movies, I cannot read about Galadriel without picturing Cate Blanchet, Arwen without picturing Liv Tyler, or Elrond without picturing Hugo Weaving. For better or worse my appreciation of Tolkien has been conditioned, likely forever, because of what I “saw.” The Second Commandment was meant to protect us from similar dangers. When the Jews worshipped the golden-calf in the desert, they were not so foolish to think that the golden-calf was their God. Aaron, after all, new better. The golden-calf was only means by which the invisible God was made visible, and there seemed no harm done in worshipping, understanding, relating to, and drawing near the true God by means of an image. But God’s glory does not suffer reduction. Man may not create God after his image and live. Church leaders, beware! Educate your congregations with dangers inherently present in PC (or any movie like this). Faith comes not by watching, but hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

4). Lastly, some suggestions and questions. Can you enjoy this movie simply as a work of art without bothering about its “spiritual significance?” Probably not if people’s reaction to PC is any indication. It seems able to move people very deeply. And yet I wouldn’t make too much of that. Likely many people who are moved after watching PC has been moved by the adulterous affair of Titanic. So, am I really going to see the movie? I probably will just so that I can better appreciate its true values or depreciate its pitfalls better. I have a feeling I’ll be moved to tears when I watch PC. But I cried watching The Return of the King. So that doesn’t say a whole lot! Should you go watch it? Well, that’s up to you, and this is a free country. But you are leaders in your respective congregations whether by vocation or not. Let me suggest that you take some time to walk your congregation through some issues before and after they see the movie. It might be helpful to go see the movie with your church and follow that up immediately with a reading of the gospels and a discussion.

by date
by topic