Posted on 02/01/2003 9:28:04 AM PST by Polycarp
Powerful stuff. God bless Gibson and the people putting together this film.
Interesting to see what the rating will be.
There is some reason for the timing of this movie. I think it means a great deal.
I agree, american colleen! It gives a ray of hope in a society large parts of which are effectively abadoning Christ. Perhaps it is like the prophets of old, only in a modern medium which can reach many. Does one dare to see the hand of God here?
Here is something interesting found on the net and posted by NYer,
[...] One common Evangelical objection to crucifixes is: "Jesus isn't on the Cross anymore, He is risen!". Well, we Catholics know that! We don't believe Christ is still hanging on the Cross, and we do believe that He is risen - that's why we celebrate Easter! Moreover, we certainly do not make and display crucifixes in order to deny Jesus' Resurrection (this should go without saying, but that almost seems to be implied in the above argument!).
Catholics understand that a crucifix does not portray the current state of Our Lord. It is intended to depict what He endured for our salvation long ago on Calvary. Though it seemed a shameful, humiliating defeat at the time, Jesus' Death was actually a glorious triumph of love and obedience. His Crucifixion brought about our redemption; this is why Catholics love it and portray it in sacred art.
[...] Many Evangelicals prefer to display a plain cross in their churches. They argue that this is better than a crucifix because "An empty cross signifies the Resurrection". But this assertion is highly questionable; Jesus' Cross was empty the moment His body was taken down, yet He was still dead! The empty tomb is a symbol of the Resurrection, not the empty cross.
Only to those who choose not to see.
Reformed theology generally prefers the empty cross because the crucifix, like incense and bells and kneeling and much of Catholic dogma, was formulated to elicit a response from the believer -- a physical, sensatory reaction that apparently is needed to encourage the believer's participation.
Reformed theology holds that since faith comes as a gift from God nothing else is required for the experience but God's intent. Thus, the empty cross signifying Christ's triumph, not our human reaction to His suffering.
Just like the eucharist is the center of the Catholic service, the center of most Protestant services is Scripture. The alter was replaced with the Bible.
The auditory over the tactile.
Romans 10:17 - So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Thus, since faith comes by hearing, I hope Gibson rethinks the language and uses subtitles or dubbing.
But either way, it will be monumental and not without personal risk to himself and his career.
God bless him.
I "hear" what you're saying, but I think the message will be more powerful without those. The graphic nature of the pics I've seen indicate that this will be much more than the sanitized version of the crucifixion that we normally see.
While our hope is most certainly in the empty tomb, we shouldn't lose sight of the physical and mental horrors that Christ endured on our behalf.
Bingo. (Of course, dubbing would be worse than just doing the dialogue in English in the first place.)
I can believe that the visual will cause such an impact that it will bring those whom He calls to the word
If Gibson was making a silent movie, that would be a good point.
But the screen will have an audio track, one that very few will understand.
Gibson believes in a Latin Mass, thus the Aramaic -- the unity of the image, rather than the meaning of the word.
I think Gibson could accomplish both by allowing us to hear as well as see.
And images can be very powerful.
I appreciate your opinion, but I still disagree. Very few people will see this film who do not already know the story.
If it is well done, and we have no reason to believe it will not be, then it will inspire viewers to read for themselves which is far better.
This is Gibson expresssing his belief in art form. I think it's a fabulous decision.
If you look at church architecture, you will find that the pulpit typically takes center stage in Reformed churches. This supports your statement that the preaching of the Word is central to Reformed worship services.
Many non-reformed denominations moved the pulpit off to the side.
Jean
I'm not necessarily challenging that, but what do you base it on? I think it's typical in the Episcopal church, and I've seen it in some Presbyterian churches. But I've been in hundreds of other churches and can't think of an example where the pulpit is not in the center.
I appreciate your opinion, but I still disagree. Very few people will see this film who do not already know the story."
Sadly, this flies in the face of the emphasis Scripture places on preaching the Word, or, as Paul says, "Preaching Christ Crucified" as opposed to holding up pictures.
Chapter 5: The Religious Conflict Between Image and Word
By allying itself with images, Christianity gains (perhaps!) efficacy, but destroys itself, its foundation, and its content. In reality nothing is left to say -- not because the word is false, but because images have emptied it of meaning."
-synopsis taken from the on-line source for The Humiliation of the Word by Jacques Ellul (1912-1994)
The interesting thing I note is the call of Reformed (Calvinist) Christians to emphasize the God ordained method of evangelizing -that of "Preaching Christ Crucified" as opposed to the desire of the Arminian Christian to allow for an "easy choice" by emphasizing pictures. (Again we see that the Arminian thinks he "knows better")
This is also evident as many Arminian churches take to "seeker services" which have brought in all kinds of innovations to the Worship service in order to make the services more "seeker friendly" (entertaining) based on the reasoning that a worship service need be more inticing to attract non-believers.
I've been to Las Vegas several times over the past four years. While the reason for my excursion is business, I have attended a few shows. I will tell you that churches will NEVER be able to match the entertainment level of such a city. Rather, I'd suggest simply sticking to the Biblically mandated means of preaching the word!
Jean
Last I read, Mel Gibson isn't a preacher.
Your reasoning would have us throw out sculpture, painting, drama, music, literature, dance...all of the arts.
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.