Mel Gibson's "Passion"

The movie, The Passion of the Christ, officially opened in theaters February 25, 2004, and it was big news, especially in the religious world. For months preceding it’s release, news and entertainment media were a blur at the incredible financial risk its producer, Mel Gibson was willing to take with the film. Emails abounded in Christian circles,"Support this film" they encouraged. Christians found it amazing that Mel Gibson, known previously for his provocative R rated genre of film productions, financed the religious film himself. The word on the street was that Mel Gibson’s passion was now to expose the world to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christians were so excited to see Gibson show Hollywood, (who's lack of interest in the production forced Gibson to pay for producing it himself,) just how valuable making religious films could be. Many were even willing to overlook the fact that Gibsons, “extreme” and “shocking” film about Jesus was pretty raw. It was rated R.

Christians, they read the Bible, and the horrors of the crucifiction were extreme, even shocking. It was a fair rating if it was to depict for the world how it really must have been. Besides that, with Gibson behind the film and the R rating, the world would be interested, and therefore the the movie was christened with the tag line, “The best outreach opportunity in 2000 years.” God’s people flocked like sheep to the theaters with their friends in tow, or bing towed by friends to see a Gibson film, a story about Jesus, someone that really had passion. Beaten, bruised, battered and crucified, Jesus was the kind of man who gave everything, even his life to meet his goals.

Gibson met his goals of making a movie that was a box office success. Christians got into line in support of the film. Churches across America bought out whole auditoriums of seating for their congregations to view the film. The world was amazed, not only when they saw Gibson's portrayal of the brutality Jesus endured, the blood and the gore, but that a predominantly Christian film could be such a hit.

One reason may have been of course, its Lenten opening on Ash Wednesday. Catholics everywhere could experience the Stations of the Cross in surround sound, on the big screen and never even have to get out of a chair! The best part though was that finally Protestants and Catholics could agree as they sat back in theater seats and enjoyed, or rather, experienced, a biblical film.

But the truth was, as Gibson told the critics, much of what appeared in the film was not based solely upon the bible. It came from material that had been previously produced by a catholic visionary by the name of Anne Catherine Emmerich. What some people viewing did not realize was that the movie was much more than a “scriptural” rendering. There was not merely deviations from the scripture due to the artistic license given to Mel as the creator and director of the film, but what was before their eyes most of the time was a vivid portrayal of Emmerich’s extra biblical mystic experience. Mel Gibson's movie was a mixture of truth and private interpretation, but to the watching world it was something not only stirring psychologically and emotionally, but something straight from the gospel account.

There are many additions to the true biblical account of Jesus. Incorporated into the story is a scene where a baby carrying devil-like creature is present at the flogging of Jesus. This is not in the Bible account. We have no story of Peter and others going to see Mary for spiritual comfort or calling her “Mother;” we could imagine that they may have, but there is no biblical account. Also, scripture makes no mention of a woman named Veronica offering Jesus her veil to wipe His blood upon it. We are also never told in the Bible that Jesus had only one eye to see with, as he trekked the road to Calvary. These instances portrayed in the film are fine for the theater, moving for a story line and even compatible with the traditions of the Roman Church, but they are all also additions to the scriptures., something the scriptures themselves warn those who preach and teach not to do.

Besides the extra biblical artistry that has been added to the film another notable feature is it's overall goal. “The goal of the movie,” said Gibson, (seethepassion.com by Terry Mattingly,) “is to shake modern audiences by brashly juxtaposing the “sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar - which is the same thing.”

So the movie had a goal in mind and it would appear that maybe the goal of the movie was not about preaching the gospel to the unsaved, although in many cases it may have been a by product. It was about juxtaposing the “sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar" which essentially means brining catholics and protestants groups together.

There are distinct differences between Protestantism and Catholicism and there has been since what is commonly referred to as the Reformation. They are as different as hands and feet or as moths and ears. Both claim to have faith in Jesus. Either denomination would call themselves Christian and talk about how Jesus died and rose again, but historically Catholics and Protestants have differed greatly on extremely important issues and "juxtaposition" especially of the cross and what the priest does upon the church altar, has never quite been a complete option for the two. Catholics believe in something called transubstantiation; Protestants do not.

They also differ on ideas like: what qualifies a person to be “saved,” or what it means to be a “saint.” They disagree on the Bible’s literalness and interpretation, even the number of 'books" that the bible should contain. They often disagree on exactly who were Jesus’ "brothers" and what the good book means by "sister" too, you see, Catholics and Protestants cannot agree on many issues. This issue of salvation, how exactly a person can be saved, is a rather large one.

The Arizona Republic newspaper, (2-12-04) reported that when Mel Gibson was asked if he believed that a person who was not in membership with the Roman Catholic church, (and subsequently under the leadership of the pope who holds the "chair of Peter",) would not be a recipient of "salvation" he, as any "good catholic" would say, said that that is what he believed. Gibson then went on to say how his wife, not Roman Catholic as Gibson is, even though she believed in Jesus, would not be saved and go to heaven.

"Put it this way, he said, “My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England…. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it."

The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism said that while non-Catholic Christians may not enjoy "full" communion with the Catholic Church, they do enjoy some "degree" of communion, enough to connect them spiritually with Christ's redemptive work. And regarding Non Christian religions and their relationship to the Church, the council stated that salvation is available to non-Christians as well, and this without having to believe the truth of the Church's own faith.

Someone is confused. Which is it? What does a person have to do in order to be "saved?"

The apostle Paul himself taught. “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Romans 10:9) And in another example in scripture, a jailer asks the apostle Paul what he must do to be saved and Paul simply tells him, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your family.” (Acts 16:31) The essential ingredient for salvation was and always will be only one thing, the person of Jesus Christ, mainly his death on our behalf and his glorious resurrection from the dead.

Interestingly enough, Gibson made a movie, albeit a rated "R" one, intending that the world would finally see and understand this Jesus thing. and with all the publicity, it's possible that the movie was a catalyst for saving faith in someone’s heart and mind, but in the hoopla of advertising for Gibson's Passion of the Christ, it was as if the Christian world forgot that seeing is not always believing. In fact, scripture teaches us that Christians walk by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7)

Faith does not come by seeing. It comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. In fact, it's the substance and evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

Religious movies, they're a bit of menace to the faith, especially when they are so violent that they have to be rated R, so graphic in their presentation that you would never bring a little child, so graphic that they make grown men want to hurl.

A W Tozer makes a good point when he compares the religious movie to the miracle plays of medieval times when such performances with their religious themes were used for the entertainment of the public and coincided with one of the"most corrupt periods of time the church has ever known." He added, Be it remembered, the instrument God uses to bring the Church out of the darkness was not drama, it was the biblical one of Spirit baptized preaching."

Jesus himself said to Thomas who asked to "see" before he could believe, “Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed.”