Second Thoughts on the Passion [Presbyterian (PCUSA) article]

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. — Exodus 20:4–6 (ESV)

As the Mel Gibson extravaganza opened in the nation’s theaters this week, "The Passion of the Christ" has already become a blockbuster among Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants. Christianity Today devotes its March issue to explaining "why evangelicals are cheering a movie with profoundly Catholic sensibilities," while First Things proclaims, also in its March issue, that the Gibson effort sets a new standard in regard to movies about Jesus, worthy to be associated with such classics as Dante’s Divine Comedy and Allegri’s Miserere.

But where does this leave Presbyterians, who do not share the public profile of either group, and especially observant Presbyterians who strive to maintain continuity with the Reformed confessional tradition that differs from both Catholic and evangelical ways of being the Christian community? What should be their take of what has become, according to the Washington Post, the most talked-about movie event in America?

We have no doubt that this movie was produced with the best intentions to depict faithfully the last 12 hours of the life of Christ as recorded in the Gospels. Nor do we lend any credence to the charge that the film is anti-Semitic any more than the Gospel writers are anti-Semitic. We are even delighted that Mel Gibson is a devout Christian who seeks to keep faith with his Catholic "confessional" tradition, a path we wish more Protestants would follow in their respective tradition. We have every reason to believe that "The Passion", as Christianity Today and First Things claim, is an exceptional work of art.

At the same time, the second of the Ten Commandments should caution Presbyterians about sharing in the hype and enthusiasm over this film. At the risk of playing the sectarian card, Protestants have historically interpreted this commandment differently than Catholics, which explains why the 16th century Reformers removed from sanctuaries — and even destroyed — paintings and statues. Catholic crucifixes, with their graphic depictions of the bloody body of the crucified Christ, were replaced in Protestant churches with empty crosses.

Some think that the Second Commandment does not explicitly prohibit the making of images of God, only the making of images that are used in worship. This would suggest that any movie that depicts Jesus is fine as long as it isn’t brought into the church. Yet that is not the way the Westminster Larger Catechism sees it: The sins forbidden in the Second Commandment are: all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all, or of any of the three Persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony, sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed. (A. 109)

The Heidelberg Catechism expresses the same idea: "God cannot and should not be pictured in any way. As for creatures, although they may indeed be portrayed, God forbids making or having any likeness of them in order to worship them, or to use them to serve him" (A. 97). Moreover, in response to Q. 98, which asks if pictures might be tolerated in place of books for the unlearned, this catechism states: "No, for we must not try to be wiser than God who does not want his people to be taught by means of lifeless idols, but through the living preaching of his Word."

These confessions come down hard on the making of images not only because God prohibits it, but also because images end up upstaging preaching, the principle means with express warrant in Scripture for communicating the faith and nurturing the people of God. As the Apostle Paul writes, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17 ESV). That is, saving faith comes through the reading, preaching and hearing of the Word of God. It does not come through statues, images, pictures or motion pictures. No wonder Karl Barth observed that "speaking about God is commanded hundreds of times in the Bible but setting up images is forbidden and barred expressis verbis" (Church Dogmatics, I/1:134).

Another problem with images is that they cannot do justice to the greatness and majesty of God, who transcends the physical senses. Perhaps this is why the movie "Ben Hur" exercised restraint in depicting Christ; it never showed his face — only his hands, his backside, his shadow. The movie’s very form suggested that this One is no ordinary human being who can be perceived easily. For human beings tend to think that "seeing" is knowing, that if they can "see" Jesus, they can therefore "know" him. Yet the New Testament is counterintuitive on this point; it talks about faith as something that is always and everywhere in contrast to sight. As John Calvin writes, "The things pertaining to salvation are too high to be perceived by our senses, or seen by our eyes ... . But we contemplate them only in his Word, of the truth of which we ought to be so persuaded that we should count whatever he speaks as directly done and fulfilled" (Institutes, 3.2.41).

As human creations, images often embellish or go beyond Scripture. If reports are correct that blood and gore are prominent in Gibson’s creation, this would represent a flaw, as the Scriptures, which is God’s creation, do the opposite and relate the facts of Christ’s death with reserve and without sensationalism. The Gospel of Mark, for example, makes no mention of blood in its entire passion narrative. The closest mention of blood is in the account of the Last Supper, where Jesus says of the wine, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mark 14:24 ESV). After that, the story of the betrayal, arrest, condemnation and crucifixion is told without any recourse to blood and gore. Surely it was bloody, but Mark does not dwell on that.

Even if such embellishment helps the viewer sense the suffering of Christ, can the presentation adequately convey the meaning of Christ’s passion to both believer and unbeliever? Can it offer the gospel, the good news, the saving word? Does it have authority to exercise the keys of the kingdom — to open and close the door to heaven — an activity that the Westminster Confession reserves to "lawfully ordained" ministers as they preach the Word?

Some might argue that the movie is not intended to promote or produce saving faith. Yet such protestations belie the fervent and genuine zeal of Gibson and the evangelicals who are strongly promoting the film, some who believe that the movie represents the most potent evangelistic opportunity in 2,000 years. Even Rabbi Daniel Lapin predicts "The Passion" might trigger a religious revival in America.

The peculiarly Presbyterian question is whether any movie fits the definition of what the Westminster Shorter Catechism calls the "outward and ordinary means" that Christ appointed to communicate his grace, which the Catechism identifies as "especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer" (A. 88). The question is not whether God could theoretically use a movie to engender faith, but what means God has expressly endorsed and promised to bless. Surely, if God has commanded his people not to make images of himself, would he bless that which he prohibits?

The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:21 (ESV) that "it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe." Just as the message of Christ crucified appears to be a foolish way to save the world, the means of communicating that gospel (preaching) also seem foolish. In fact, if the "outward and ordinary means" seemed foolish in Paul’s time, how much more so in a mass-media society that values the dramatic, the visual, and the extraordinary. From a human perspective, preaching seems ineffective and old fashioned compared to the extraordinary means of a dramatic motion picture. Yet, just as salvation is the work of God in the human heart, the effectiveness of preaching depends upon the unseen work of Christ who appointed those means, not upon human ingenuity or creativity.

For these reasons, one motion picture — no matter how compelling — cannot add to or enrich the preaching of the Word that is carried out weekly in worshiping congregations. We therefore don’t need images or representations of any kind, confident that the Scriptures contain, as the Confession (1.6) claims, "all things necessary ... for man’s salvation, faith and life," or as the Shorter Catechism (A. 3) puts it, "what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man."

"Moreover, in response to Q. 98, which asks if pictures might be tolerated in place of books for the unlearned, this catechism states: "No, for we must not try to be wiser than God who does not want his people to be taught by means of lifeless idols, but through the living preaching of his Word." "

As a teaching tool, I think the film is weak for the very reason stated above.

The film genre is necessarily limiting.

I did see the film and I would say that while I did not find much "wrong" with the film, I thought it was incomplete.

To me the most egregious error of the film was to emphasize the physical suffereing as opposed to the more important spiritual punishment of Christ by the Father.

The spiritual punishment of Christ by the Father I find was almost completely absent. While there was certainly anguish portrayed by Christ in the garden at the beginning of the film, many who see the film might have been led to believe that this anxiety was due to Jesus foreknowing the physical abuse he was about to under go as that was pretty much all the film dealt with. There have been many who have been punished physically and emotionally as much as Christ did at the hands of the Romans soldiers, but no one has been spiritually punished as much.

I would think that a film would have a hard time communicating that aspect visually without going into special effects and/or speculation.

These are just some of the reasons that the catechism fobids using visual aids for teaching -and I agree.

A preacher who preaches the Word of God is not limited in such a way. You can interact with a Minister of the Word. You cannot do so with a film.

Jean

If reports are correct that blood and gore are prominent in Gibson’s creation, this would represent a flaw, as the Scriptures, which is God’s creation, do the opposite and relate the facts of Christ’s death with reserve and without sensationalism. The Gospel of Mark, for example, makes no mention of blood in its entire passion narrative. The closest mention of blood is in the account of the Last Supper, where Jesus says of the wine, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mark 14:24 ESV). After that, the story of the betrayal, arrest, condemnation and crucifixion is told without any recourse to blood and gore. Surely it was bloody, but Mark does not dwell on that.

Interesting comment. Anyways, if you delve into many of the articles pertaining to the Passion, a common thread occurs where many in the media and the entertainment industry claim that the film is too violent. That it is too gory. That it is, according to one, almost gothic in its violence.

As i said, interesting.

They say that is not biblical. That Mel Gibson basically decided to add the 'excessive violence' as some means of sensual gratification.

This week the by-word was that the movie is, and i quote, 'pornographic.' Pornographic!!!!!

Anyways, when the movie 'Kill Bill' by Quentin Tarantino came out, the same media and entertainment pundits were calling it a masterpiece. There were fountains of blood gushing out of necks that had just been sliced by a Katana (samurai sword), and all sorts of terribly gory scenes (in one scene Uma Thurman knifes the character played by Vivica Fox, just moments before Vivica's child, a lil' girl, comes into the kitchen and sees her dead mom. And what does Uma's character tell the lil' girl? "Once you grow up i will be waiting for you to come try kill me.")

The reason i bring up Kill Bill is because a few moments ago this guy came on Fox (he writes movie reviews), and he wrote an article saying The Passion is excessively violent, and also went off on a tirade against Mel Gibson. What was interesting is that one of the Fox guys re-read the article that person wrote for Kill Bill, where the guy said the movie (Kill Bill) was a masterpiece and great. What excuse did the person give for the divergence between 'good violence' and bad? Well, he said that in Kill Bill the violence was 'cartoonish.' I personally watched that movie ....cartoonish violence is when Jerry drops a bowling ball on Tom's head in the Tom-n-Jerry cartoon series, or when Wily Coyote gets blasted with an Acme ray-gun! Having Uma slice up 30 guys, limbs flailing and heads dropping, all with copiuos amounts of blood, gore and unidentifiable body ooze galore! Hmmm ....that is not cartoonish violence.

Anyways, going back to the Bible and its account of what Christ went through. It is vivid, and gory, and shows just what Christ went through for the world. It is not some white-washed clean-faced Christ dying in a quasi-operatic manner with lil' cherubs flying around him trying to swipe away any flies and keep him cool! No! It was a violent, terribly excrutiating way to die.

According to history, people condemned to be executed by crucifixion died in an unusually cruel way. The english word 'excrutiating stems from the root crucifix! People could die in hours, or could die in days. The majority died by asphyxiation, since the way they were crucified slowly made it hard to breath. Some died out of shock. Others had interesting 'adjustments' made ....for example the Apostle Peter was crucified upside down.

Before the crucifixion, the person scheduled for execution was flogged. Now, the Romans had 3 ways of flogging a person. All were brutal, but the 2nd and th 3rd at times killed the person. The whip literally cut gashes into the person's skin, and in the 3rd method of flogging many times lead to shock and eventual death (by the time the person was crucified he would die out of shock and blood loss instead of asphyxiation under this means

And that is from the history of crucifixion.

Now, to the bible. The Bible that this article says does not mention any great angst, blood or pain. The gospels say Jesus was scourged (whipped and flogged), that he was beaten with hands and sticks, and taken through a lot. In the book of Isaiah it says in Is 52:14 that He became an object of horror to the extent many were astonished at Him. His face and His whole appearance were marred more than any man's, and His form beyond that of the sons of men. (Amplified Bible)

Also in the book of Isaiah (53:3-5) it says He was despised and rejected and forsaken by men, a Man of sorrows and pains, and acquainted with grief and sickness; and like One from Whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we did not appreciate His worth or have any esteem for Him. Surely He has borne our griefs (sicknesses, weaknesses and distresses) and carried our sorrows and pains (of punishment), yet we ignorantly considered Him stricken, smitten and afflicted by God. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastisement (needful to obtain) peace and wellbeing for us upon Him, and with the stripes (that wounded) Him we are healed and made whole.

The verses above tie with those in Matthew 8:17, Mark 15-19, Luke 22:63-65, Luke 23:11 (which ties with Isaiah 53:8), so on and so forth. John also shows that he was beaten up.

Anyways, this has gotten to be much longer than i originally intended, and i have to go do other stuff.

In essence the focal point was to show how the media is double-minded in what is 'good violence' and what is not, and also to show that the Bible does show that Jesus' death was not some little tap in the back as some would want us to believe.

Take care and be blessed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.