Thoughts on The Passion of the Christ

 

 

 

By Tom Holtz

 

First, let’s start with the obvious. By all accounts the movie is extremely gory and violent—even for Hollywood. It is said to be at least as violent as Mel Gibson’s earlier movie The Patriot, or Pulp Fiction, which the New York Times described as two of the most gory and violent artistic works of the modern era. This was a red flag for us. Philippians 4:8 says, “whatsoever things are true, …honest, …just, …pure, …lovely, …of good report…think on these things.”  I don’t believe this movie satisfies that standard, even if it purportedly describes the suffering of our Lord on the cross. 

 

Some say shocking violence, vivid gore, and explicit images of repulsive brutality are excusable because they’ll help people see what Christ did for them, such as Bob Lepine of Family Life, who writes, 

 

The Passion may be [Gibson’s] most violent film to date, and it deserves its R rating. On more than one occasion as I watched this movie, I had to turn away from the screen. I remember thinking at one point, “Enough. This is over the top.” And almost immediately I had a second thought. “That’s right,” I thought. “This is over the top, because the death of Christ was, in reality, barbaric and violent.” Maybe what we all need to see is not a cleaned up, sanitized Hollywood version of His death, but a more accurate and graphic look at how He suffered for us. (February, 2004 website article; emphasis added.) 

Why does Lepine (and so many others) suddenly link “accurate” and “graphic” in the same sentence these days as though they were perfect synonyms?  The Bible doesn’t include graphic details in any crucifixion narrative. Certainly God knows how “powerful” and “moving” it would have been to include such descriptions, but strong preaching applied to man’s conscience is what God ordained to spread the gospel with power through the movement of the Holy Spirit. The Bible says “…faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”  And, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation…”  And, “you were born again, not with corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, through the living and abiding word of God.”  And, “for the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” Man can use shock and violence to evoke extreme empathy and emotion and bind viewers together in a “shared experience” of grief, horror, and outrage, but this is not God’s pathway to saving faith revealed in the New Testament, nor is it a means to greater devotion and intimacy with God among God’s people. 

 

Yet, Mel Gibson (and evangelical leaders lining-up behind him) tells us that a graphic depiction of Christ’s death will make it more “real” and powerful. In September, 2003, Gibson told New Yorker magazine: “I wanted to be true to the gospels. That has never been done before. I didn’t want to see Jesus looking really pretty. I wanted to mess-up one of his eyes, destroy it.” True to the gospels, Mel? Which of the Gospels depict Jesus with “a destroyed eye” or anything like it? The Biblical accounts of Jesus’ beating and crucifixion are as minimal as they could be. Matthew, Mark and Luke essentially state: “Having scourged Jesus, Pilate delivered him to be crucified,” and “when they came to the place which is called the skull, there they crucified him.” A dozen or so verses later, Jesus is dead. The Gospel writers did not linger over His suffering to stir emotions and empathy. As one commentator put it: 

It would be as odd as welcoming home a wounded soldier and, instead of focusing on the victory he won, dwelling on the exact moment the bayonet pierced his stomach—how he felt and what it looked like. A human soldier might well feel annoyed with such attention to his weakness rather than his strength. He would feel that it better preserved his dignity for visitors to avert their eyes from such details and recount that part of the story as scantly as possible to focus instead on the final achievement. This is the sense we pick up in the Gospels. Jesus’ suffering is rendered in the briefest terms, as if drawing about it a veil of modesty. What’s important is not that Jesus suffered for us, but that Jesus suffered for us. It is the contrast with His eternal glory that awed the earliest Christians—and should us today. 

 

As reasonable as this explanation appears to be, we don’t really know why the gospel writers don’t give explicit details. The only fact we know for sure is that they don’t. 

 

Likewise, nowhere outside the gospels does the Bible suggest we meditate on the gory details of Christ’s suffering—rather, that we focus on His life, the fact of his death, His resurrection, intercession for us, and His future return. For example, in the classic text of Philippians 2:5-11, Paul exhorts believers to focus on Christ: 

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, …

Surely, Paul knew what suffering was all about, yet he lifts up for meditation the fact of Christ’s humility and suffering in light of His deity and subsequent exaltation, not the gore and torture of His execution. Likewise, in Hebrews 12:2-4, the writer exhorts us to consider the death of Christ in another historically beloved text: 

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

Clearly, the fact of Christ’s bloodshed is in view, but where’s the graphic depiction of the teeth-grinding anguish and repulsive brutality of Roman soldiers torturing our Lord mercilessly? Again, in Psalm 22, a classic lament of David with clear messianic overtones, we observe modest and poetic language describing His physical sufferings: 

 

They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. 

God’s people have much for their imaginations here, yet nothing graphic or torturous is spelled out. One might easily conclude from Scripture that our appreciation of what Christ did at the cross is not enhanced by experiencing a graphic, artistic rendition of the crucifixion event.[1] 

 

In Matthew 7:15-20, Christ tells us to beware of false teachers who will come in looking like the flock. We are told to examine their fruits because a tree is known by its fruits. A good tree will produce good fruit and vice versa. When evaluating some new doctrine or method or any new thing, Christ tells us to examine the fruits of the person offering it, in addition to its apparent conformity to Scripture. The Passion of the Christ was written, produced, financed and directed by Mel Gibson, a Hollywood actor who describes himself as not a born again Christian, but a devout Roman Catholic “Traditionalist,” which holds tightly to the view that Mary is co-Redemptress with Christ, and that the grace of Christ is mediated to man through Mary. He rejects salvation by grace alone through faith alone—his church everywhere teaches that those who believe that pernicious doctrine are anathema (damned to Hell). He believes there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church, but is mediated only through taking her communion in the traditional, Latin-rite Mass of the Eucharist. Gibson believes Pope John Paul II is a liberal because he accepts Vatican II (1965), which allowed the mass in languages other than Latin, and expunged the Jews of blood guilt for killing Christ (formerly Catholic dogma for 8 centuries).  

 

On March 6, 2003, a friend of Gibson’s, Gary Giuffré, told the New York Times that Gibson’s movie “will graphically portray the intense suffering of Christ, perhaps as no film has done before,” and that it will “lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belongs.”[2]  OK, so he’s not exactly a Christian. But I’ve heard many say he has a good reputation. Gibson’s reputation might be good by Hollywood standards, but what about Biblical ones? Gibson is known exclusively for his movies, which, without exception, contain countless expletives and are extremely violent and gory (Kill Bill, Lethal Weapon, Mad Max, Braveheart, Patriot, etc). As a New Republic reporter put it, “Gibson loves gore.”[3] Would you say we have a “good tree” here, from a Biblical point of view?  Does Mel Gibson meet the standard of Matthew 7? Does anyone associated with this movie meet that standard? 

 

Some say, it’s just a movie and it’ll get people talking about Christ and we can use it for pre-evangelism and ignore the bothersome elements of Gibson’s personal faith and not-so-Christian reputation. If The Passion of the Christ is a tool of evangelism, who’s the evangelist? Is Mel Gibson one of the sheep?  Should we expect to receive something from Mel Gibson that true, born-again, New Testament Christians would find perfectly suited to taking to a lost world? Answer this question not on the basis of how you think the church could use his movie, but from what Christ says about false teachers coming in among the sheep.   

  

Let’s look more closely at the movie. The script is based on the four gospels and The Mystical City of God by St. Mary of Agreda, and a book of visions entitled, Dolorous Passion of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by St. Ann Catherine Emmerich. The latter two are Roman Catholic saints and “passion mystics” of the nineteenth century. The passion mystic school has always been a very popular Catholic subcurrent. It emphasizes strange devotional rituals (e.g., Stations of the Cross) to induce trance-like meditations on the sufferings of Christ as a source of inner power and transcendence. Many Catholics quickly and correctly recognized The Passion of the Christ as a passion meditation in the classical mystic tradition. Passion mysticism is far from Biblical—in fact, it’s occultic. Emmerich is a legend among passion mystics and Gibson is a serious follower who carries a relic of hers with him. There’s an introduction to her life at <www.spiritdaily.org>. The whole article is astonishing, but here’s an excerpt:

 

The famous work of hers is a book of visions called The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That’s the one tied to the movie. All I can say is that I knew she was a major mystic. I knew she had incredibly detailed visions. I knew she suffered the stigmata.[4] But I had no idea of the extent of what this remarkable German woman reportedly experienced. [She grew up] in Flamske, Germany, and the older she got, the more one sensed what Msgr. Schmogen describes as a “mysterious power that emanated from her.”  Her visions began early in life. By the tender age of four she often prolonged her prayer for two to three hours. She claimed to see her guardian angel on a nearly constant basis. She also levitated. When she entered a cloister, she was frequently seen inexplicably above the ground. She was said to “bilocate.” In vision (or bilocation) she saw the execution of King Louis XVI, and “visited” Marie Antoinette, queen of France, in prison. As a child, she was taken to see the suffering souls in purgatory. Historic pictures flashed before her eyes—like those that would spawn The Dolorous Passion, and serve to fill in details (like those in The Passion of the Christ) that are not recorded in Scripture. She also saw “the creation of Heaven, the fall of the angels, the creation of the earth, and paradise,” notes Schmoger. “In successive visions, she followed, through ages and generations, the development of the holy mysteries of the Incarnation and the Redemption.” As Schmoger says, reading her revelations leaves one feeling that he has undergone an “unusual influence” similar to what is now reported with those who see the movie. It’s no surprise that there is a special “something” around a movie that taps into them. It’s no surprise that the movie’s director, Mel Gibson, is said to carry one of her relics. The visions may not be perfect. No mysticism is, but they are extremely potent. Her entire life was potent. And highly mysterious.

 

Gibson admits his movie is based upon Emmerich’s book, which was also the inspiration for it in the first place. 

 

For the mystics, the purpose of their transcendent meditations is to become so emotionally and psycho-spiritually connected with the actual, physical sufferings of Christ, that they are “changed within” and gain greater spiritual growth and awareness from the experience. Sound familiar? This is what many evangelicals suggest will be gained by “experiencing” the movie. The construction of The Passion of the Christ as a passion meditation in the mystic tradition was no minor artistic afterthought. The film was shot in southern Italy and in Rome in part so Gibson could be near the Vatican for consultation. According to Italy’s national Catholic newspaper, Avenire, Gibson consulted high-level Catholic theologians within the church almost daily throughout the shooting. On December 11, 2003, Pope John Paul II screened The Passion on DVD with his close friend and secretary, Monsignor Staislaw Dziwisz, in his private residence, and gave it his approval (the Pope recently changed his public position for political reasons to neutral and reported comments were officially retracted). No one denies that “Roman Catholic teachings” are readily apparent in many places in the film. It is important to understand that the movie itself is a passion meditation. Claims about technically accuracy are irrelevant to this point. If you watch the movie, you are participating in a passion meditation (i.e., a mystical rite). This is why Christ instructed us not to rely solely on our own assumed ability to spot false teaching in the things offered to us for consumption, but to look also at who is offering them.  

 

Some will say, “So, what can a little mystical dogma hurt, so long as Christ is presented?”  Remember, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, New Agers, etc., all present Christ. First-century Gnostics presented Christ. Catholics, for their part, present Christ—as well as a “Come Home to Rome” campaign among nominal Christians and evangelicals—with some success. They see “evangelical” (toward Rome) potential in this movie. For example, The Daily Catholic reports: 

 

Many see Gibson as a Hollywood movie star, but True Catholics see him as an evangelist in the purist sense. A true Apostle for the Truths and Traditions of the Church Christ founded. Mel has set on film what has always been set in stone: the everlasting reminder of why Christ died for each and every one of us. We have that reminder daily in the Latin Mass in the Alter Christus—the priest offers Him up daily as a propitiatory sacrifice in an unbloody manner to the Father for us. Prayerfully this movie will move the hearts and souls of millions to return to the Truths and Traditions of Christ’s True Church. (Daily Catholic, January 17, 2004; emphasis added). 

Indeed, the international magazine Inside the Vatican has chosen Mel Gibson as its “Man of the Year” for 2003. And why not?  When unbelievers are led to this movie (and its creator) as a good introduction to Christ, and they like what they see, why wouldn’t they consider Gibson’s faith as a whole? Again, who is the evangelist, here? It is Mel Gibson, not all the evangelical leaders lining up behind him. Evangelical leaders do not control Mel Gibson, the Roman Catholic organization, or the steps either one of them will take after this movie has been consumed by the public. They decide what comes next. This is why the Roman church is so excited about this movie. Check their websites. 

 

Thirdly, is the movie really accurate? Linda Chavez, a Roman Catholic and President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, syndicated columnist, and former head of the Civil Rights Commission for the Reagan Administration, writes: 

 

Gibson’s film is an intensely Catholic account of the death of Christ. Indeed most of the scenes depicting Christ’s journey along the Via Dolorosa on the way to Golgotha seem inspired by the medieval Catholic devotional ritual referred to as the “Stations of the Cross,” which dates back to the 14th century. A scene in the film depicting Jesus’ encounter with Veronica, who wipes his face and is left with Christ’s image on her veil, is part of Catholic tradition, for example, and may be totally unfamiliar to non-Catholic viewers. (Emphasis added.) 

Here’s what another reviewer observed who saw the entire movie: 

 

Much has been added to the gospel story to fill in the gaps. In an interview after the film, Gibson stated that it was “the Gospels plus my imagination” and that he brought the story from the Gospels and added information from “history, visions, and medicine.” Perhaps because of Gibson’s Roman Catholic background, Mary has a major role in the film. Gibson puts Mary at nearly all of the events of his trial, torture and crucifixion, and even has Mary kissing Jesus feet when he is on the cross. There are many scenes like that one—not Biblical, but based upon mystic and apocryphal writings and Roman Catholic tradition. I took notes of the non-Biblical scenes, events and characters and had a full page of them. The danger is that this film will become the Oliver Stone’s JFK of the crucifixion—that is, the public will only “know” the crucifixion story as it is depicted here with all the non-Biblical material assumed to be Biblical or historical. This is the only way, I’m told, that many now “know” the details of the assassination of John F. Kennedy—through Oliver Stone’s fictional film. 

Another reviewer had a similar experience and similar concerns. Here’s an excerpt of his review: 

 

Consider, for example, that the movie is said to depict a frenzied riot around Jesus as he drags the cross to Calvary—Romans, Jews and others wildly fighting, with Christ being brutalized by all. Wild riots happened a lot in Mad Max movies, but not in the Gospels. Christ is depicted as falling at three points, but otherwise the carrying of the cross is presented as a solemn event. Here … is how the Gospel writer Luke, a deeply ardent believer, presents the scene: “As they led him away … A great number of the People followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him. But Jesus turned to them and said, “daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.” This doesn’t sound like the depiction of a crazed riot, nor does Christ’s injunction sound like the sort of thing shouted over a melee. 

 

Despite Gibson’s definitively Catholic interpretation, he asserts his work is “the truth”—historically accurate in the factual sense. What Mel Gibson means by “truth” is whatever he and his Catholic advisors think happened. 

 

Interestingly, Gibson tells of many “miracles” that led to the creation of the movie, and on the set where shooting took place. For example, a blind 2-year-old child had her sight miraculously restored. Both Reuters and Associated Press carried the story that Assistant Director Jan Michelini was struck by lightning twice during filming, and the actor playing Jesus, James Caviezel, was struck once. Both were miraculously spared from harm with no signs of injury—“only smoke coming from Caviezel’s ears,” according to witnesses. Caviezel is also a staunch Roman Catholic who, during breaks in shooting, “always had a priest with him.” Gibson tells of many others. I’m not sure what all this means, but these are self-reported by people (mostly Gibson himself) who think these are signs of God’s blessing. He says so openly. 

 

Some acknowledge objectionable elements in the movie, but ask, “won’t people be moved by Christ’s sufferings on their behalf and be more likely to investigate further?  Can’t we use it for pre-evangelism? First of all, the pre-evangelism we see in Scripture is that of serving people in selfless acts of Christian love. This was the basis of Christ’s healing ministry and other miracles (feeding the 5,000, etc.). Christ met people’s physical needs because he loved them. That supernatural demonstration of love won Him a hearing with people and softened their hearts. That principle is still at work today all over the world as missionaries heal, treat, feed, and care for the poor, teach people English, and perform other acts of service. This is pre-evangelism. The gory details of Christ’s crucifixion will evoke extreme emotions—empathy, outrage, shock, sorrow, despair—but experiencing the movie is not a supernatural demonstration of Christian love for which the only explanation is God. Christ’s work depicted in the movie might be, but to the movie-goer it is just another movie about someone being tortured and, quite frankly, they’ve seen many, many of those. Keep in mind all movies, in one way or another, depict a hero doing something selfless and grand for the benefit of others, even giving their own life. These characters may inspire us temporarily and make us feel good, but they do not work a lasting change within us. 

 

Furthermore, God can and will use whatever means He chooses to achieve His sovereign purposes, even false teachers and our own bad choices. But we should guard against the creeping pragmatism of “whatever appears to work,” and follow a Biblical path in faith and trust God for the results. No doubt, pragmatism will seem too abstract and theoretical for some. Any method other than preaching the word, the prayers of God’s people, testimonies, worship, self-sacrificial service in the name of Christ, and living-out our faith before the watching world, should be suspect, especially when it fails Philippians 4:8 and Matthew 7. A pure walk and a joyful abstinence from all appearance of evil and false teaching is the best pre-evangelism. 

 

 

QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT BE USED TO EVALUATE THIS OR A FUTURE FILM

1.                   Does this film satisfy the letter and spirit of Philippians 4:8? Is it pure, wholesome, lovely, and of good report in every respect?

2.                   Does Mel Gibson’s religious beliefs and reputation with other movies constitute “good fruit” in the meaning of Matthew 7? Is    he one of the sheep? Is Gibson a “good tree” from which we should expect to see good fruit through which Christ will bring glory to Himself?

 3.                   Does close and personal identification with this actor, this movie, or the Hollywood movie industry compromise a healthy degree of separation from all appearance of evil and false teaching? Will endorsement of this movie help a false teacher (or teachers) gain a foothold among the flock or among unbelievers? (Separation is a touchy subject these days, but remember—much error arises from running too far from other men’s errors.)

 4.                   Does this movie reflect the spirit of this age in any respect? If so, how? What are the implications of this if such a movie were unqualifiedly embraced by the church in a major mass evangelism effort?

 5.                   Suppose everyone sees the movie as suggested and the movie is a blockbuster. What will Hollywood do next? How will we react to Gibson’s next movie entitled, A Day in Hell (i.e., Dante’s Inferno), or The Stigmata (life of Ann Catherine Emmerich), or some other cultish project? Will unbelievers, new believers, or persons “impacted” by The Passion of the Christ be likely to view these movies? To what consequence?

 

 

[1] On the other hand, explicit depictions of Jesus’ broken body and sufferings through paintings, statues, and literature is a well-known Roman Catholic distinctive (we now add “film” to that list of genre). How would you react to seeing a large crucifix installed in our church lobby? How would you argue against it?  Keep in mind, Catholics deny that they “keep Jesus on the cross” by such things. Catholics affirm Christ’s resurrection. They claim these images help us meditate on Christ’s sufferings. The removal of such distracting icons was a key feature of the Protestant reformation and the theology behind it.

 

[2] The Catholic tradition of “passion plays” has a checkered history in medieval Europe and Russia, where their performance around Easter often produced violent pogroms against Jews. This is the historical context for the Anti-Defamation League’s criticism of the movie. Many clips were removed (after pressure from the ADL) before a rough cut of the film was screened for evangelical leaders, and edits have been made since those screenings. Some say Gibson changed his original commitment to portray Jews as he originally planned.

 

[3] Bob Lepine of Family Life wrote, “Those who have seen other Gibson movies (Braveheart, The Patriot, We Were Soldiers) know that he does not shy away from violence and gore as a filmmaker.”  Gibson does not shy away from violence and gore?  Are we to congratulate Gibson for these courageous films?  Another reviewer points out, “[Gibson’s] Mad Max movies are an embarrassing paean [tribute] to teen fantasies of violence and slaughter as fun. His Lethal Weapon movies depict criminals killing more often, and police killing far more often, than occurs in real life. There’s little wonder that The Passion of the Christ depicts an over-the-top, Hollywood-style splatter movie.”

 

[4] The high point of the passion mystics’ belief and practice was to receive the stigmata, which is the miraculous appearance of the actual physical wounds of Christ in their bodies. Emmerich’s wounds (including thorn wounds to her head) are said to have bled on and off during her lifetime, and she wore bandages frequently.

 

 

 

Click here to Email Hughie Seaborn - In Cairns, Qld., Australia

The "Lamp" Ministry Web Site Designed and Maintained by Hughie Seaborn - No copyright unless indicated.