responsepassion

Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt (Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org

[i] We are not to be guided by what God suffers to use, but rather by what He commands to be done. We all draw the line somewhere in the sand as to what is acceptable. I happen to be drawing my line a lot closer than those who endorse this film as a means of portraying the gospel. Paul got pretty upset when he found himself endorsed by the damsel with the unclean spirit in Acts 16:16-18 even though she was speaking the truth. He certainly wasn't indifferent then.
[ii] It is significant that in Christ's day when there were theatres etc., we have no record of any apostle or their helpers engaging in these things.
I am not against the use of films per se to evangelise. I am all for using modern technology to spread the gospel, but I must seriously query the idea of putting forward an actor to play Christ.
[iii] You have the advantage on me here, in that you have seen the film. However, was Christ clearly and explicitly set forth as the Eternal Son of God? To say that He is pictured as divine and unique could come as easily from a Watchtower Magazine.

2. I disagree completely about depicting Jesus in film. Paul says we become all things to all men in order to bring them to the gospel. In an age where men appreciate and are taken up into movie experiences, depicting the gospel through film is very effective. To say otherwise is to teach what it does not say in scripture, and it is to create laws about things which are burdensome. It reminds me of how the Jews made it unlawful to say the name of God YHWH. The rabbis made this rule because it forbade taking God's name in vain. But it does not say not to speak it. In fact, people in the OT say it all the time. The rabbis later made another law over the original law to further protect themselves.It's not wrong to depict the gospel visually. Because if it is the word of God is being displayed, then it is still the word which people are seeing. For example, the evangelical Jesus film has converted thousands to Christ. Will you say this was wrong? What of a man who cannot read the Bible for himself, or a deaf man who could not hear it. Would you deprive him of seeing the story of Jesus and his testimony through visuals?
[i] Paul becoming all things to all men to win some is not a blank cheque. It is bounded by the written word of God.
[ii] As said above, I am not oppsed to depicting the gospel through film per se. I do query the use of a human actor to play the role of the Eternal Son of God.
[iii] The effectiveness of any form of evangelism is not the deciding factor. "What is written?" must always take precedence over "Does it work?" otherwise, the Jesuit is right to say that "The end justifies the means."
[iv] I can rejoice over thousands of people being saved through whatever means, without endorsing the means if they run contrary to what is written.
[v] The rabbis who forbade the use of the Lord's name went beyond what was written. By doing so, they forbade what was commanded. This film, by going beyond what is written, allows what is forbidden. Either way, the word of God has been effectively cast aside. I am simply arguing for the authority of Scripture to regulate our evangelism.
[vi] What great advantage has a film over (say)the God ordained way of preaching, to a man who cannot read the Bible for himself? A deaf man cannot hear the words of the film,, but he can read the Bible for himself.

About the second commandment, Jesus was God as man. He was the physical manifestation of God on earth. To make a physcial representation of Jesus, the man, is no sin. To make one and worship it would be a sin. But if just making a picture of a man, who really existed, is sin, then what of children's bibles that show Jesus as a cartoon, or illustrated Bibles, or the Jesus film, or anything else. Its the intent of the law to forbid the worship of idols (after all, God told the workers who built the tabernacle in Exodus to make cherubim, and Solomon as well, for the temple in Jerusalem, but God did not contradict himself when he said this) The portrayal of the man Jesus might be incorrect (maybe he didn't have a beard - though Isaiah might hint otherwise) but the point is that people KNOW IT'S JESUS. The Jesus of the Bible. That's what's most important. Your position might be more dangerous, because you are giving too much importance to the physical image of Jesus than is warranted. Are you committing idolatry? No, but you're giving too much to what Jesus looked like and how important that is. In fact, there was nothing that was spectacular about him, physically. What's really important about Jesus is who He is and what He did. I feel that's adequately portrayed in the movie.
[i] Your arguments on the second commandment and also on the tabernacle and Solomon etc., mirror those exactly of the Church of Rome, (which, I know, from your previous email is not your intention.)
[ii] Why does the Bible itself not employ the use of art? It is the oldest form of communication, apart from speaking, and I'm sure someone somewhere might have sketched Christ as He ministered. Yet, all we are left with are words. Even if you want to go down the "success road" argument, it is not as if these words don't work. Maybe we have gotten away from knowing how to use them properly, or we are neglecting the one reason (which you rightly refer to in the next paragraph) - i.e. the power of the Spirit of God to use His own word.
[iii] How can the people KNOW ITS'S JESUS i.e. the NT Jesus and not "another Jesus?" such as is present in the RC Mass or in those lovely, colourful Jehovah Witness books?
[iv] I have no desire to give too much attention to the physical image of Jesus, because the Bible itself does not. I would imagine that the man appointed to "create" the image of Jesus on the film was more concerned about it than I am.

3. The sufficiency of scripture is not an issue. But one may turn into a Pharasaical mindset when you speak like this. The word of God is "living and active". This means that the power does not lie in the typeset Bible, nor do you have a relationship with a book, but with the Spirit who caused men to write "the book". This same Spirit accompanies the word and brings faith to the hearer. Surely then the Spirit can convict through a visual media which conveys the message of the word, and intent of the gospels. What of those men who go to other countries and preach the gospel, but do not read to the natives from a Bible at first. Surely they present the gospel through their own interpretation, in a way that will best be received by the native population, and yet the Spirit works in those who hear it even though the missionaries are not reading ver batim from a bible. An example: Paul on Mars Hill uses pagan mythology and poetry to show the sovereignty of Christ. It doesn't invalidate the scriptures, but helps those who are unsaved better understand in their own culture, what the scriptures say. Then once saved, proper teaching from scripture can be done to build them up as Christians in their understanding. I don't think Paul left Christians in Greece believing that Jesus was just a greater god among other gods, but they came to learn after that there was only one God. However, Paul "sacrificed" this truth, in order to win them over first. He didn't deny the other gods existed, but used their idol to the unknown god, to bring Jesus into it. How horrified would you be at Paul's technique for evangelism? A note of interest: The first scene of the movie has Isaiah 53 put up on the screen, and so does bring the scripture into it.

[i] The Pharisees again went beyond Scripture, effectivley arguing that in itself it was not sufficient and required something else to make it relevant to the people. When our Lord confronted them, it was He who used the same argument as I am using, "It is written..." In these things, I am simply standing where the Lord and His Apostles stood, along with the Reformers and other great Christians have stood.
[ii] No one is arguing that the black or red ink, Indian paper, and calfskin cover of the Bible has any power.
[iii] While it is true that you cannot read to the natives from a Bible that has never been translated into their language, and so must employ very basic means to communicate to them, this is still a million miles away from a high powered film which takes great liberties with the simple story which appears in the pages of the Bible. I think your argument here is dependent upon me saying that we must use only the printed book as a means. This is not the case. What I am arguing for is that we do not go beyond the principles which the Apostles use.
[iv] While Paul used the altar to the "unknown God" as his starting point - yet he only used it to expose it and all that it stood for, and then preached the word of God. I have no reason to be horrified at all by Paul's technique. He did not violate the word of God.
[iv] Wonderful that Isaiah 53 was put on the screen of this film. However, this does not render any of the other criticisms which must be made.

4. Your scripture for this section is out of context. Some people did hate the message of the movie. They hated the gospel. Your 1 Cor. scripture cannot be used to support your stance on movies. It's interesting to note also that Lutheran churches in Germany had passion plays as well, and thousands of other non-Catholics who used them to display the truth of the gospel to those who could not read or would not read the scriptures.
[i] Some folk hate anything which even mentions the name of Jesus, and equally loathe Evangelicals, RC's, JW's, Mormons or whoever. Such hatred should not be seen as a kind of reverse type endorsement of the contents of the film.
[ii] Again, our guiding star is not what the Lutherans or others did, but what saith the Scripture?

5. I agree about the mystic thing. And I agree that Mel Gibson's beliefs are heretical. Yet it still doesn't undo God's power to save through the gospel. I did not see any overtly Catholic scenes in the movie, and the scenes which were not in the Bible, are NOT heretical, nor are they consequential in any way to the rest of the story. Some added scenes actually brought in theology from other parts of scripture, which are not evident in the gospel accounts themselves. For example, Gibson put Satan in the garden of Gethsemane to tempt Jesus so that he would not follow his Father's will. This scene was not in the Bible, but I thought what Satan said to Jesus, and the response of Jesus to him, were very biblical and it actually added the gospel message to the movie in the dialogue, whereas the message would not have been evident without this scene. (I speak here about what his death and resurrection MEANS, which Satan does talk about)
[i] I'm glad we agree on Mel Gibson's Roman Catholicism being heretical.
[ii] What in your eyes constitutes an overt Catholic scene?
[iii] Is it or is not a Roman Catholic movie? It may be that I can adapt certain parts of it to blend with my beliefs - pretty much as I could, in theory, go to a RC Mass and do likeiwse.
[iv] It would be interesting to see, in print for scrutiny, what the heretic, through the mouth of Satan, tells us what Christ's death and resurrection means. You have the advantage here over me, did this explanation come anywhere near the gospel?

6. Again, you should watch the movie and seperate the wheat from the chaff yourself. I do not agree with the pastor's take on Mary as displayed in this movie. Yes, there were catholic "stains" in it, but none were heretical. Yes, she suffered very much in the movie, and it was very touching. Like you said, what mother wouldn't? But the movie presents it as if she is suffering AS A MOTHER and nothing else. There's not co redemptress anything. The Catholic doctrine may be heretical, but it did not show in the movie. She was present with Jesus at the cross, and at that moment there is an interesting part when she says "Son, let me die with you." and then Jesus says "Woman (previously she called him mother) here is your son" and he hands her over to John. So the scene supports the truth that Jesus seperated himself from his mother at his death, rather any heretical doctrine of her being his mother in his divinity. Granted, in his ministry years, he separated himself from his mother much earlier than at this moment, but at least this moment is here and is not overlooked. Mary also calls Jesus "Lord" in the movie. She even quotes a scripture about the salvation of God coming, and she includes herself in it. The only thing I could argue against this movie is that Peter calls Mary, mother, as if she was a mother to the disciples as well. There is no historical evidence showing that she remained a type of spiritual mother to the early church, but this COULD be true at the local/historical level, WITHOUT being heretical. For example, I have spiritual mothers in my church and fathers as well, and believing Mary could have had this role in her church does not imply any kind of divinity imparted to Mary or anything else that the Catholic church really teaches. However, it is inconsequential to the gospel message.
[i] You fail to tell us what these "Catholic stains" were on this film. Even if they are mild, yet at the very least, they have opened the door to deeper "stains" which will not wash off so easily.
[ii] It is not for no apparent reason that the Bible has so little to say about Mary. Even the emphasises of the Bible speaks to us. Gibson's film upset that balance and did so in favour of Mary. This is what you expect from a heretical Roman Catholic, and this is why Rome backed the film and recommended it to her prospective converts. I have perused the Roman Catholic recruiting sites as well.

7. Again I see your comments here as unnecessarily legalistic and unwarranted. The Bible IS violent, very violent actually. And you make a distinction here between graphic images and graphic literary images which I see no evidence for. When you read something, an image does comes to mind. Not only that, but the early Christians knew what it meant to be crucified so when the scriptures spoke of it, they understood its implications. We do not. If violence disturbs you there is a recut version with the more violent moments taken out. I've said it before, you should have seen the movie, because what Jesus says, the devil says (in the beginning) and the scriptures in the beginning, all explain why he is being put through all of this. Not only that, but at least in America, the story of Jesus is culturally noted and understood in the most basic sense. Also I've seen people come to Christ because through the film they understood he suffered for their sakes, whereas when someone told them he died or was crucified, they didnt know what that meant nor did they care because it was so far removed from them historically.
[i] Again, it is not legalism to seek to stay within the ambit of Scripture.
[ii] Although the early Christians had a greater acquaintance with crucifixion than we have, yet this was known to the Spirit of God who still uses restrained language when dealing with the violence.
[iii] As said in the original critique, Mel Gibson is noted for his love of gratuitous violence in his films. He has a cinematic lust for blood. This time, it happens to be the blood of God's dear Son, financed by the professing people of God.
[iv] Can you tell me, having seen and now vigorously defending this film, what Jesus said, what Satan said etc., was the reason? I'll risk putting to you that it was so vague, that liberal Protestants, Roman Catholics and anyone else who cared to go could live with it.

8. Why add this point at all? You hadn't seen the film. It seems you are just reaching for another criticism to throw at the movie without knowing what was in it. It is not at all anti-semetic. If it is, then the Bible is also anti-semitic. You should not speak about it without knowing what it is you are speaking about. If you notice, it was the liberal, pagan media which used this as an excuse to have the film banned.
[i] You have a point here. The tract was written soon after I had prepared a sermon which dealt with the Jewish objections to this film on the grounds that it blamed the Jews. In that sermon, I explained that both Jew and Gentile were guilty. On reflection, I'll remove it from the original criticism because as you say it is not really a reason to oppose the film, and this was the declared purpose of the tract.

9. Again, your point here is uninformed and unwarranted. The movie explains the WHY in a few places. Jesus says it, the devil says it, the
scriptures posted at the beginning say it, the disciples talk about it at the last supper, etc. Then there's the resurrection scene. Now, he WAS going to leave that out of the movie and I would have strongly strongly STRONGLY disagreed with that, considering it an incomplete gospel, since we preach christ crucified, yes, but also that he was raised from the dead. Thankfully Gibson included it, (thanks to evangelical Christians pestering him, actually). I would have like to have seen more of the post resurrection Jesus, actually. But as it stands, there was no way through scripture that you could justify condemning the movie.
[i] What was said to be reason? Does it measure up to the gospel's reasons as explained in great detail by the Apostles in the rest of the NT?
[ii] Our choice here is not if there was no "Passion" film, there would be no evangelism or no other means of reaching the lost. The issue here is: Should we work with heretical Roman Catholic mariolaters in presenting their view of the gospel? What signals are we sending out, bearing in mind that many prominent Evangelicals will oppose this film for (at least) what they perceive to be very good Scriptural reasons? What did people do before such films came along? What are other people doing who are not backing this film? The work of God in a purer fashion will still go on. Christ will still build His church through the means He has appointed.

Everything I say, I say in respect to you. If I sound condemning or harsh, I apologize, because it was not my intention. I also believe you are a fair minded, and gracious Christian man, from what I read in all your other work. I hope you do not take legalistic stances toward how we live as Christians, and I hope you would not judge Christians for going to see this movie and for liking it. I know you highly respect judging all things according to scripture and not your own desires, feelings and views. I contend it is possible to thank God for working salvation through a movie, and even through a heretical man such as Mel Gibson.
[i] I think you have conducted your defence very acceptably indeed. I don't feel intimidated or anything like that. I hope that my replies don't come across as being short. Some of my Christian friends went to see the film. We just agreed to disagree, as we have to do on several other issues.

If you have already ammended any of these views which you have posted, or have seen the film, then please disregard such comments as respond to those things. FC
I appreciate you taking the time to write.