I saw PC last Friday, and here are, in no particular order, my thoughts, both too short (for me) and too long (for you)!

1. Of Mary:
   
   PC is as much about the sufferings of Christ as it is about the sufferings of Mary. And Mary's passion goes beyond a mother's grief for her son or a Christian's suffering with Christ in a non-redemptive way (cf. Php 3). Throughout the movie Mary is portrayed not so much as a mortal mother, but an omniscient being, the one who is orchestrating her son's passion. So at several places in PC Mary and Jesus exchange knowing glances, and at times Mary gives her son a nod - as if to signal that Jesus received strength to face the next stage of his passion from his mother, or perhaps Mary was giving her son permission/charge to go on suffering. Thus Mary's reaction seeing her son being tortured to death is subdued. And who can forget, when Peter had denied Jesus three times, he comes and confesses his unworthiness before Mary (who is addressed as Mother with capital M throughout PC) in a scene reminiscent of Peter's meeting with Jesus in the boat: "Depart from me, Jesus/Mary, for I am a sinner" (my paraphrase). Finally, when Jesus' body is taken off the cross, the camera zooms in, not on Jesus, but on Mary as she is staring straight into the camera. As the scene fades out, the audience is looking at Mary and Mary at them. The death of Jesus is an issue between us and Mary. We are answerable to her for Jesus' death. There is an undeniable undercurrent of Marian theology in PC. In a typical Roman fashion, a great care is taken to portray Mary as co-redemptrix with Christ ("Let me die with you my son!"). You'd better put down your popcorn and your big gulp, take out your rosary and start praying, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."
   
   
2. Of Gibson's use of Scriptures:
   
   In the gospel accounts we find a respectful brevity and silence concerning the details of Christ's passion. But that does not make an exciting movie. So Gibson filled in the blanks using accounts from Rome's traditions (read "unbiblical") and other dramatic embellishments. In the end, of course, the result is either omission or twisting of truth. So Peter's denial, which in the gospels takes place over night, in PC takes place in a matter of 20 seconds. There is a prolonged portrayal of Jesus' flogging. And, indeed, this is the most exciting, and most talked about, part of the movie. Jesus' suffering through Via Dolorosa is also prolonged and embellished. This makes the movie more exciting, certainly. But the crucial moment, the climax of the passion of Christ, when he hangs on the tree and becomes a curse for us, is cut short. After all, there is nothing cinematically exciting about a man hanging on the cross FOR HOURS while by degrees his life is drained out of him in excruciating pain. So what in reality took relatively a short period of time (flogging, Via Dolorosa) is extended while his crucifixion, that part of his passion which in reality took hours, is given a short change. His excruciating pain (have you thought about the meaning of the word "excruciating"?) is all but passed over. Half truths/half lies all for the sake of making the movie more dramatic. Such flippant use of scriptures, of course, is no big deal and nothing new for Rome. But for evangelicals, this should not be so easy to swallow.
   
   
3. Of evangelical response to PC:
   
   This movie, contrary to what many evangelicals apparently think, is a great devotional liturgy for Roman Catholics. In it a Catholic finds affirmation of Mary as co-redemptrix, affirmation of trans-substantiation, mystery of the rosary, and a tribute to the traditions of Rome, among other things. But Gibson has marketed PC heavily to evangelicals, and many evangelicals have embraced PC with arms open wide. Why, and how, are evangelicals walking out of PC with unmitigated praise? To put the answer negatively, it is the victory of postmodernism. We really don't care about the authorial intent (in this case, Gibson). The all important question is, "What does this movie mean for ME?" After all, why not? This is how many Christians do their QT. But put positively, what we observe is Van Tilian truth. People come out of PC with what they walked in with. People interpret PC according to their presuppositions: a Catholic with Roman Catholic presuppositions, an evangelical with evangelical presuppositions, a Jew with Jewish presuppositions. So most people walk out with what they wanted to walk out with. Either way, nothing that people get out of this movie really has anything to do with PC. What evangelicals get out of this movie is despite/in spite of the movie. Yet I do not think it is improper for evangelicals to be moved by watching PC. Folks in whose heart Christ is very dear, despite the shortcomings of the movie, will reflect upon the passion of Christ, and naturally and properly, should be moved (again, despite and in spite of the movie). Personally, I found the movie very disappointing and manipulative of my emotions (the haunting, beautiful music, ridiculously laughable contorted faces as representations of evil spirits, several classic Hollywood shock moments, etc.). If you think I am a hardened and ungodly heathen for not being moved by PC, I am glad Gibson's PC is not the standard of piety for any Christian. I did think, as I was watching PC, and repented, of all those times I read the passion narratives in the gospels with dry eyes. But this movie did not do "it" for me.
   
   
4. Of using PC as an evangelical tool:
   
   My belief is that PC will be more effective converting "evangelicals" to Roman Catholicism than converting non-believers to evangelicalism. By observing many evangelical response to PC it is clear the very heavy dose of Catholicism is not detected by them. I fear this is going to contribute to continued erosion of evangelical truths. An evangelical should never walk out of PC thinking Roman Catholicism is not all that bad, or that there are no discernable differences between Rome and evangelical gospel. But I fear this is exactly what is going to happen. It's ECT all over again. Will some non-believers be drawn to the church? Probably. But if there's going to be a genuine conversion, we know it is by the work of the Spirit of Christ, not because of PC in which, try as you might to find it, the gospel is not proclaimed. Check out an article written by a Roman Catholic who makes a similar point published by The National Catholic Register:
   
   http://www.ncregister.com/current/0229lead3.htm
   
   Lately there has been a well documented defection of "evangelicals" into Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy. We should have expected this. People are getting tired of the shallow seeker-friendliness of contemporary churches and are seeking for something more traditional. After all, what is seeker friendliness if not letting non-believers dictate how Christians should worship their God? In an age such as ours, the mysticism and the perceived depth of history and tradition is going to have a far greater impact upon evangelicals than PC is going to have on non-believers. And since when did we start thinking evangelism is the one purpose of church for which all wrong doings can be forgiven (false gospel, irreverent use of scriptures, etc.)?
   
   
5. Some theological remarks and conclusion:
   
   There is no justification of the sinner without resurrection. But as you know PC's resurrection is all of 20 seconds! In other words, two hours worth of bad news (does PC ever tell us why Christ is suffering?) and 20seconds worth of unexplained antidote to the bad news. When the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies in the OT we knew whether God accepted his sacrifice or not if the High Priest walked out of the Holy of Holies with his life. Jesus, our High Priest and himself the sacrifice, is sacrificed to make atonement for our sin. It is his resurrection which tells us God accepted his sacrifice; the High Priest lives! That is, Jesus' resurrection is not just some debatable point in our apologetics. It is the cornerstone of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It really is not an exaggeration to say that PC is nothing but bad news from the perspective of atonement. There is no gospel in PC. Thus it's really difficult for me to think nicely about PC. It's clearly not the gospel (do YOU believe Mary is your co-redemptrix?). Christ's sufferings are portrayed unhistorically and untruthfully. Is PC, then, simply a work of art? I tend to think there are things too sacred that should never be brought down into the forum of entertainment. At best, it's a conversation generator, but one that leaves me more mess to deal with than if there had been no PC. Call me a fundamentalist, old-fashioned, narrow-minded, whatever. I think PC is bad news. And I fear we are going to feel the repercussions of PC for many years to come.

I wrote this review as a Reformed Christian. So I'll end with Articles 20-22 of the Belgic Confession (one of the Reformed standards) written by Guido de Bres, martyred by the Roman Catholic church in 1567 for confessing this evangelical, Reformed faith.

Article 20: The Justice and Mercy of God in Christ

We believe that God - who is perfectly merciful and also very just - sent his Son to assume the nature in which the disobedience had been committed, in order to bear in it the punishment of sin by his most bitter passion and death.

So God made known his justice toward his Son, who was charged with our sin, and he poured out his goodness and mercy on us, who are guilty and worthy of damnation, giving us his Son to die, by a most perfect love, and raising him to life for our justification, in order that by him we might have immortality and eternal life.

Article 21: The Atonement

We believe that Jesus Christ is a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek - made such by an oath - and that he presented himself in our name before his Father, to appease his wrath with full satisfaction by offering himself on the tree of the cross and pouring out his precious blood for the cleansing of our sins, as the prophets had predicted.

For it is written that "the chastisement of our peace" was placed on the Son of God and that "we are healed by his wounds." He was "led to death as a lamb"; he was "numbered among sinners" and condemned as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, though Pilate had declared that he was innocent.

So he paid back what he had not stolen, and he suffered - the "just for the unjust," in both his body and his soul - in such a way that when he sensed the horrible punishment required by our sins his sweat became like "big drops of blood falling on the ground." He cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

And he endured all this for the forgiveness of our sins.

Therefore we rightly say with Paul that we "know nothing but Jesus and him crucified", we consider all things as "dung for the excellence of the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." We find all comforts in his wounds and have no need to seek or invent any other means to reconcile ourselves with God than this one and only sacrifice, once made, which renders believers perfect forever.

This is also why the angel of God called him Jesus - that is, "Savior" - because he would save his people from their sins.

Article 22: The Righteousness of Faith

We believe that for us to acquire the true knowledge of this great mystery the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts a true faith that embraces Jesus Christ, with all his merits, and makes him its own, and no longer looks for anything apart from him.

For it must necessarily follow that either all that is required for our salvation is not in Christ or, if all is in him, then he who has Christ by faith has his salvation entirely.

Therefore, to say that Christ is not enough but that something else is needed as well is a most enormous blasphemy against God - for it then would follow that Jesus Christ is only half a Savior. And therefore we justly say with Paul that we are justified "by faith alone" or by faith "apart from works."

However, we do not mean, properly speaking, that it is faith itself that justifies us - for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness.

But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his merits and all the holy works he has done for us and in our place. And faith is the instrument that keeps us in communion with him and with all his benefits.

When those benefits are made ours they are more than enough to absolve us of our sins.