Listen in WMA
Download MP3
Download WMA"Behind The Scenes Of The Passion Movie - Is It A Christian Film?"
Copyright 2004
by Pastor David Legge
All rights reserved
Now I have no Bible text as such to bring to you, but my title this morning is 'Behind The Scenes Of The Passion Of The Christ' - the movie by Mel Gibson - and the subtitle is in the form of a question: 'Is It A Film For Christians?'. I'm preaching on this subject in response to questions that have been asked of me, and I know have been asked of others: is this a film that a Christian should support? Is it a film that a Christian should
encourage other non-Christians or Christians to go and see? Is it a film that we as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ can endorse? And so I'm seeking this morning to answer the question: is this a film for Christians? - and what is behind the scenes of this film. Then this evening I want to take the gospel message under the title: 'The Outtakes of the Passion' - looking at what the film doesn't tell us, and it won't be a critique as such of the film, it'll just be taking the opportunity to present the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In case you don't know already 'The Passion of the Christ' by Mel Gibson is a two hour long attempt to visually, violently, and graphically capture the last 12 hours of the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was released in the United States on February 25th by Icon Films, February the 25th incidentally coinciding with the Roman Catholic holy day, the feast of Ash Wednesday - indicative of the fact that Mel Gibson sees this work as an act of devotion. Now this won't be a Bible study this morning, and I want to be very careful in the facts that I am portraying to you, that I convey them and communicate them accurately - so bear with me, and do take these facts down, if not on a piece of paper then in your mind. He sees this work as not a moneymaking exercise, but as an act of devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, which he expresses primarily through the Roman Catholic faith.
The reason why I'm preaching on this subject this morning is because this Friday, the 26th March, there will be the release of the film in the United Kingdom. I think it was the 12th of March it was released in the Republic of Ireland, and maybe some folk from up here in the north have travelled down to see it - but this Friday it will be released here in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom. In anticipation of that, and to pre-empt it, I want to bring before you the biblical principles that I think are important for us to consider in the light of such a film coming on the screens of our cinemas.
The strange thing, or perhaps not so strange in this day and age, is how both mainstream Christians of every denomination and the cinematically curious are motivated to see this film by the 'must see' factor. In other words, it's something that people just want to see. In the States particularly there's been such hype about it that almost no one wants to miss out and not see 'The Passion of the Christ'. I think in the next week you're going to see it yourself through advertisements, and debates on the radio and the television and in our newspapers, there's going to be another hype here on this side of the Atlantic - and people will be motivated to just go and see what it's all about, whether they agree with it or not.
Now can I plead with you before we go on any further, that the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ should never ever under any circumstances be motivated by a 'must see' phenomenon. The danger is that we get carried along with all the hype and hysteria, and fail to consult the canon of the word of God - and 'canon' is Latin for 'measuring stick' - the thing that we measure everything with must be the word of God. We're going to look this morning, and ask ourselves: are there principles in the word of God that can guide us in relation to this matter of this film? I want to do that, but I want to also note to your attention that many many evangelicals in the church of Jesus Christ are embracing this film not only as being accurate, but they are adopting it as an instrument to their evangelism.
James Dobson, who gives us many very helpful resources through Focus on the Family, and Billy Graham who God has blessed in years gone by, have both endorsed and indeed recommended the use of this film as a tool. Many evangelical congregations, such as the bestselling author and Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback church - Rick Warren, who wrote that very famous book 'The Purpose Driven Church', and also 'The Purpose Driven Life' - he reserved seven nights of his local film theatre, he bought 18,000 tickets and took all his church down there in order that 'seekers' - seekers after God and after the Lord Jesus Christ - may be exposed to what Christ went through on the cross, with a view of them being converted by God's grace.
So please do not misunderstand what we're saying here: this is not just simply a film, but the prime motivation for me addressing it this morning as a subject from our pulpit is that this film is currently being adopted by many evangelicals as a way, they believe, to see people saved. But not only are evangelicals adopting the film, Roman Catholics are adopting the film as well. Lisa Wheeler, who is the associate editor of the Catholic Exchange, a web-portal dedicated to Catholic evangelism, told Atlanta Journal Constitution - I quote these words: 'It's the best evangelisation opportunity we've had since the actual death of Jesus'. Now did you grasp that? 'It's the best evangelisation opportunity we've had since the actual death of Jesus'.
So we're asking the question: should evangelicals support and endorse the film in the use of evangelism? Is this really the best evangelisation opportunity that we've had since the death of our Lord Jesus Christ? Is it something that we ought to put our name to as believers? And I believe in the days that lie ahead we will see many of our evangelical churches, at least some of them, using this film in evangelism. Now before I go on any further, I want you to be perfectly clear that I don't see everything to do with this film as negative. Now I want to be on record as saying this: there are some things that we ought to be thankful for because of this film. The first thing is this: the historical events that surround the gospel message that we believe in, i.e. the trial, the putting to death of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, the burial and subsequent resurrection, are going to - in the weeks, and days and months, perhaps years that lie ahead of us - be the centre of public discussion and contemplation. I think that's a good thing - it's better than talking about who won the Cheltenham Cup the other day, or what's going on in the pop music world, or what's going on with transfers among football teams. We are going to be engaged in a discussion and a debate with the most worthy thing imaginable - that is the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ - and we ought to be thankful for that.
Paul said in Philippians and chapter 1 verses 16 to 18 that he rejoiced even if Christ was preached in contention. There were those who were preaching Christ so that Paul would get a beating in prison, they wanted the cause to be heard in the streets so that Paul would be persecuted all the more - but Paul rejoiced, no matter who was preaching Christ, as long as Christ was preached! Let me say this: God can use whatever He likes in His sovereignty to save whomever He wills - and sometimes He uses things that we would not be happy with. But please see that there is a subtle distinction: God in His sovereignty can use an ass to speak to a man, but it does not mean that we all bring our donkeys to church on a Sunday morning or a Sunday evening, especially when we're going to communicate the gospel to the lost. Does that mean that because God can use it, as He uses anything, that we adopt it as a means, even a God-ordained method, of reaching people for Christ?
Nevertheless, let's be thankful for the fact that people will be talking about Christ and His cross. The second thing I'm thankful of is that I myself, and other Christians, have been forced to wrestle with the critical issues of this film. What I mean is we've been forced to ask ourselves: are we as believers motivated by the 'must see' popular culture, or by the principles that regulate our conscience that we find within the word of God? I wonder what you're motivated by? I have to be honest with you: deep down in my heart there's a part of me that would really like to see this film - but I have to allow the Spirit of God to regulate my heart, and to control my mind in order to bring me - as He does, I hope, every day - away from my old nature, to walk in the Spirit and not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. Does the word of God and the principles of the word of God, some of which have been buried in the past, do they regulate our actions?
Here is the third thing to be thankful for: it will afford us unusual opportunities in evangelism, and to talk to people about the Lord Jesus Christ. What do I mean? Well, people will go and see this film, they will be confronted with a pseudo-gospel in one sense or another, but it may cause conversation. You may go into work some morning, and someone will say: 'I went to see that film last night', and you have the opportunity not to just say 'Well, here's what's wrong with it...A...B...C...to Z', but you'll be able to say: 'Well, do you really know what that is all about? Do you know how it applies to you?' - and I hope that you will take that opportunity in a positive sense, not a negative sense. Utilise and capitalise upon this opportunity, or if I could perhaps misapply the text of Scripture where Paul says we should use this world, not abusing it - use it as an opportunity to present Christ.
Now, I know some of you are all sitting here this morning waiting on 'Is he going to say 'Go', or is he going to say 'No'?' - well, I'm going to say neither. What I'm going to do is give you the principles in the word of God that I have found, and ask you before God in all good conscience to ask yourself: 'Is it a film that I can see? Is it a film that I can support? Is it a film that I can endorse or even use in evangelism?'.
I want to do it under three headings, here's the first: are the origins Christian? Are the origins of this film Christian? The second: is the script Christian? And third: is the medium Christian? The method of a film to see people won for Christ, is that a Christian method? So let's move on swiftly and apply the sole truth - I hope we're all in agreement on this - the sole truth and authority of everything that we believe, the word of God, to this film.
Let's look at its origins first of all: are the origins Christian? Even though evangelicals are promoting this film, this is not an evangelical movie. There's no doubt about that. It's not evangelical in the sense that we know, as Bible believing born-again Christians, because Mel Gibson himself is a devout Roman Catholic - and he has claimed himself, I quote: 'It reflects my beliefs'. He said: 'I have not made a religious film, it reflects my beliefs'. So 'The Passion of the Christ' essentially, because Mel Gibson is a devout Roman Catholic (and we'll see how deep he goes into his Catholicism a little bit later), it is a Roman Catholic film made by a Roman Catholic director, and also having on its set Roman Catholic theological advisers, giving advice on the whole of the narrative scene of the death of Christ.
The film has gained the endorsement of none other than Pope John Paul II, who said after viewing it himself: 'It is as it was' - it is as it was. Now it has proven itself in its effectiveness in evangelism, because there have been many converts after seeing this film and even acting in this film - but they're not converts to the Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel that we find in the Scriptures, they are converts to the Roman Catholic faith, they are Catholic conversions. This film, whether you realise it or not, it encourages Roman Catholic devotion. Now let me document this for you, and everything that I quote to you this morning can be documented and referenced - I don't have time to do it right throughout the message this morning, but I have them all if you want to know where they're found.
One periodical wrote this way: 'In his first nationally broadcast interview about his starring role in Mel Gibson's much anticipated film 'The Passion of the Christ', James Caviezel' - that is Gibson's Jesus, the man who acts the Lord in the film - 'detailed on Friday the ordeal of filming the crucifixion scenes, noting that the overall experience prompted many in the crew to convert to Catholicism' - not to Christ, to Catholicism! Noting the amount of conversions on the movie, he said that the experience of filming Christ's story, I quote: 'Really changed people's lives'. Jim Caviezel recalled telling Gibson: 'I think it's very important that we have mass every day, at least I think that to play this guy I need to have mass every day. I felt if I was going to play Him I needed the sacrament in me', and every day the crew had mass before they acted on the set. This is factual information, and in fact at the end of this film Jim Caviezel, the actor of the Lord Jesus, said this about the whole of the artistic creation: 'This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son' - end quote.
Now, I don't need to go on any more, I hope, about the origins of this film that they are not Christian - they're not Christian in the Bible sense, they are Roman Catholic in origin, in source - but we see further that they're not Christian when we look at the script of the film, and ask the question: is the script Christian? Now let me take this in a number of sub-points, here's the first: although, as you will hear many people say, even Bible believing Christians, that the script is based to a large extent on the gospel of John and a compilation of other gospel narratives, there is much in this film that is comprised of what we call in theology 'extra-biblical material'. That means other things that we don't find in the Bible that have been added to the record of the word of God - what are these extra-biblical materials? Well, in part some of them are the writings, devotional books, by mystical Roman Catholic saints and Christians, so-called. But one in particular that Mel Gibson claims was a primary inspiration for making this film was a devotional work of an 18th century German nun by the name of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, entitled 'The Dolorous Passion of the Christ' - he even gets his title from it - 'The Dolorous Passion of the Christ'. Gibson stated that its reading was a primary inspiration of making this film.
No, no matter how much of the film comes from the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we have to say that when we begin to add extra-biblical material from the likes of Sister Emmerich, who is a Roman Catholic mystic, you have to say that the theological emphasis inevitably will change. That is proved in the evidence of the film itself. We must ask the question too: is that the type of material that we want communicated to people who are lost? Is that what they need to hear? Can you imagine a version of the Bible that came out with added words? We get a lot of debate about Bible versions with words taken away, but can you imagine a Bible version that came out tomorrow say, and there was words put in the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ, thoughts put in His head, that are not found within God's word? There would be an uproar! Yet that is exactly what Mel Gibson does and what evangelicals are lauding, they are blessing apocryphal material! That means material that has been proved and found to be lacking in inspiration, and adding it to God's word as if it was God's word itself - and the book of the Revelation pronounces a curse on anyone who takes away or adds to God's word, God says that their name will be taken out of the Book of Life.
Therefore we see that it is not just based on the gospel writings, but on extra-biblical material - but it also takes one thing out. Matthew 27, where the Jews said: 'His blood be on us and on our children'. Through pressure, and you might have heard some of the debate, political pressure from the Jewish camp they felt that that was anti-Semitic, so they took it out. Some say it's in Aramaic or in the Latin somewhere in the film, that you or I can't understand - I don't know about that, but nevertheless it's taken out for our communication to our minds in English. So do not believe that this film is based 100% on the word of God - a large amount of it comes from the narratives of the gospel, but there are things added, and the sources that they're added from are Roman Catholic sources.
Here's the second aspect that proves, I believe, that the script is not Christian: it was translated into Aramaic and Latin. You say: 'Well, so what?' - well it was translated into Aramaic and Latin by a friend of Mel Gibson by the name of Father William Fulco. That means nothing, incidentally Mel Gibson has his own private chapel on the grounds of his home, and has mass said regularly in the grounds of his home, but nevertheless William Fulco translated this script from English into Aramaic and Latin - and it was not done to make it more authentic because people in the Lord's day spoke Aramaic, or that the Romans spoke Latin! There were theological reasons why the language is translated to Aramaic and particularly to Latin. Let me quote you from, I believe Christianity Today in the United States, which is a middle-of-the-road Christian periodical: 'It is crucial to realise that the images and language at the heart of 'The Passion of the Christ' flow directly out of Gibson's personal dedication to Catholicism in one of its most traditional and mysterious forms, the sixteenth century Latin mass'. Listen, this is a quote from Gibson: 'I don't go to any other services', he told the director of the Eternal World Television Network in the United States, 'I go to the old Tridentine rite, that's the way that I first saw it when I was a kid, so I think that that informs one's understanding of how to transcend language. Now initially I didn't understand the Latin, but I understood the meaning of the message and what they were doing, I understood it very fully, and it was very moving and emotional and efficacious if I may say so'. That first quote, by the way, may not have been from Christianity Today, forgive me for that - but he told the director of the Eternal World Television Network: 'The only mass I go to is the one said in Latin'. 'What's the reason Mel?'. 'The reason is there's something about it, even when I was a kid and I didn't understand it, there's something about the strange mysterious language and the pictures and the moving about that's emotional, efficacious!'.
The goal of the movie from Mel's own lips is 'to shake modern audiences by brashly showing them the death of Christ, in order to juxtapose the death of Christ in this film with the Roman Catholic mass'. 'Juxtapose' just means a visual representation that takes you in your mind to that place. Now you might think this is really splitting hairs, or looking for things that aren't really there are, but Gibson himself has said, I quote: 'The sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar, which is the same thing, that's the way I see it. The sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar, they're the same thing'! Now I can't take time to fill you in with Roman Catholic theology, but every time they go to mass and they offer the wafer and the priest drinks the wine, they're sacrificing over and over and over and over and over again ad infinitum the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ for their sins, and that is why they see it as a means of grace for their salvation. It is the blasphemy of the highest kind, but Mel Gibson is saying: 'This is my dedication, this is my pictorial presentation of the mass' - and that explains all the blood and all the gore, although of course there was that at Calvary.
What Gibson is doing is uniting the ancient union of symbols and sounds that have taken hold of Catholics for years in the mass, and he's putting it on celluloid for all of us to watch! If you were ever at a mass, in that rite the priest - particularly in the Tridentine rite - the priest consecrates the host, and he turns his back to the congregation, and he lifts the host high, and often he's lifting the host facing a crucifix. There's a sense in which there's an understanding that there is a link, an organic link between the host in his hand and the crucifix on the wall, a conscious connection of the sacrifice of the altar and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross - it's the same thing, and Gibson says that himself!
Richard Bennett, who once I think testified from this pulpit, an ex-Roman Catholic priest himself converted by the grace of God, said of this film: 'This film is a pictorial representation of the mass' - he should know, but we should know as Gibson more or less admits it himself. Praise God that the Scriptures know nothing of a repeated sacrifice for sin. The Lord Jesus on the cross said in John chapter 19 verse 30: 'It is finished, tetelestai' - over, completed! Incidentally, those words are changed in Mel Gibson's film - he says 'It is accomplished', what is accomplished? What you wanted to do for that second? Something can be accomplished for a moment, but it can be repeated again and again and again, whereas the Lord Jesus used a categoric term: 'It is completely finished'. Hebrews 10:11-12: 'And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God' - forever!
Is the script Christian? There are extra-biblical sources, there is this allusion and juxtaposition to the mass, and thirdly I would have to say that there is a dominant preoccupation with the physical sufferings of Christ, a dominant preoccupation - even, perhaps some would say, and I have not seen the film - you might say that's a bit hypocritical, but I'll explain a little later why that is - but some would say who have reviewed this film, an almost sadistic preoccupation with the sufferings of Christ which is inconsistent, and grasp this please, inconsistent with the Bible's emphasis of the sufferings of Christ. The dominant emphasis of the word of God with regards to the cross of Christ were His spiritual sufferings that you and I, or any man even at Calvary on that day, could not see.
Let me show you this in Matthew 27 that I asked you to turn to, Matthew 27:26: 'Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified'. In this film there is continual scourging, He is scourged even beginning at Gethsemane, which is not found in the word of God. Every opportunity a Roman soldier has they pummel Him, they beat Him, they flagellate Him to a pulp. Now I know that Calvary cannot be described, even the physical sufferings that we read in the word of God, that His visage was marred more than any man, but Scripture in a modest and in a humble dignified sense does not use such gross and gory language. Why? Because the Scripture is not preoccupied with the physical sufferings of Christ, although it records them and we love to read of them, but the predominant theme of Calvary is what went on in the dark! What we cannot see - there's no gruesome gory details, and when we go down to verse 33 we read: 'And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting...', it just flows, doesn't it? You could almost pass over it, 'and they crucified Him', and that's all the word of God says. There is a restraint, dignified, in describing the physical sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now if we were to go back to Gethsemane we would see that his soul's suffering - not necessarily efficacious or vicarious suffering that atones for sin, but the suffering of His soul started there! There wasn't a man laid a hand on Him, and He sweat great drops of blood, and nobody put a spear on His brow - but because His soul, as He said, was exceeding sorrowful even unto death as He contemplated Calvary, that is the suffering of Christ that on the cross became efficacious and atoned for our sins. Matthew, Mark, and the Gospel of Luke give us in unusual details the beginning of the sufferings of the soul of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane. He is described as being sore troubled, falling to the ground repeatedly. He says: 'My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death', an angel has to come and strengthen Him. There's no record in the Scriptures that on the cross the Lord Jesus cried aloud from the physical abuse of man's crucifixion of Him - but at the end of the three hours, when plunged into darkness of man's judgment for sin, when He drunk from the hand of God His Father, Almighty God, all the dereliction and all the abandonment and the forsakenness that He bore on His own soul that the Bible says was made sin for us who knew no sin. He died, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God, He was made a curse on that tree - all of these spiritual ramifications of Calvary that we cannot see, that is when He cried out: 'My God, my God, why...'.
Satisfying the justice of the Romans on the cross - and I make this statement advisedly - was easy, was easy, compared to what the Lord's holy soul went through on the cross. Isaiah 53 says: 'His soul was made an offering for sin. He bore our sins in His own body on the tree'. There's none of that in Gibson's movie. 30,000 people or more are supposed to have died by crucifixion, even Spartacus, several of the apostles of our Lord Jesus died by crucifixion - but not one of them, not one drop of their blood could satisfy the justice of an angry God against sin. We'll hear more about that later on tonight.
Let's deal thirdly and finally with - we've looked at are the origins of this movie Christian? Is the script Christian? - thirdly: is the medium Christian? I want to take a bit of time to deal with this: the method of movies. Pastors and evangelists and Christian leaders are hailing movies as part of a new and a better way of evangelising and spreading the gospel. Let me quote to you a pastor by the name of Pastor Corey Engel of Harvest Springs Community Church in Great Falls, Ontario, I think it is. He says this: 'This is a window of opportunity we have. Here is a guy', Mel Gibson, 'who's putting his money into a movie that has everything to do with what we do'. He goes on: 'Churches used to communicate by having a little lecture time on a Sunday morning - people don't interact that way any more, and here's a chance for us to use a modern day technique to communicate the truth of the Bible'. Have you got it? 'People don't listen any more to what preachers say, and here's an opportunity of a man with the money that can do it, making a movie, and it's everything that we believe in' - even though they probably are aware of some of what we've just mentioned - 'why not capitalise on it and enter into it?'.
Now I think we should capitalise on it in the sense of presenting the true Christ and the true atonement to people, but can we embrace a film like this as a means of evangelism? Even though we live in a highly visual society, an increasingly anti-literate society - people don't read any more - should we capitulate with this medium of evangelism? Can I just give you a very short history lesson to say that the last time dramatic means and presentations were used, replacing Gospel preaching, was during the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages. It was during the time when the Bible was chained up by the church, it was in Latin so that even if the people could break the chain they couldn't understand it - it was during that age that the church refused to let any translation of the Bible into common languages. But what they used to do to communicate the love and passion of Christ to the people, and to make sure that they still had bottoms on pews - if you'll excuse the expression - and getting money in the coffers, they went around in travelling 'passion plays'. Bands of actors would go around and depict actorially the death of our Lord Jesus Christ in order to stir and stimulate the emotions of the people to shed a tear or two and come to church.
It was the age of statues, the age of relics, the age of icons, designed in order to play upon the emotions and to engender a response from the ordinary people. Incidentally, could I just say in passing, that you can go on the web site of 'The Passion of the Christ' and find out - this grieves me so much even to say this - you can find mugs; keyrings, keyrings that are four inch nails, square nails that you hang on your bunch of keys; Bible covers, and the little zip part that you unzip, it's a big nail; T-shirts, a bloody heart, a crown of thorns - they're cashing in on the death and the blood of my Lord Jesus Christ. Is it any different?
Now listen, this is a very subtle satanism, because the evangelical movement at large today is shifting from the word of God and the sufficiency of the word of God in evangelism to every single thing you can imagine! Can I say that the Lord Jesus Christ, He was the Creator of all things, and He could have summoned at the click of His finger any animal that no one in Palestine had seen. He could have done any trick and astounded all the people, but He didn't do that! He didn't have a travelling circus behind Him! The word of God says, as Paul said to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4 that: 'As a child, Timothy, at your mother's knee, Timothy, you have known the Scriptures which were able to make you wise unto salvation'. Can I say that no matter what churches do in Ulster in the next weeks, the Scriptures still have the power of God unto salvation! They're still true! He goes on to say that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable, and it can make you fit, it can make you holy - in other words, paraphrasing it, it can give you everything that you need as a Christian! Yet Christians are running around us if our evangelism was insufficient until Mel Gibson came on the scene!
Regardless of how unpopular it is, Paul said to Timothy: 'In the season and out of season, you preach it, you're commanded to preach it', and God's word will accomplish the purpose wherewith He has sent it. God doesn't command us to produce dramatic presentation of Gospel themes. The apostles, you know, lived in an age of dramatics, an age of theatrics. When they brought the gospel to cities they'd never been in before, there were cities with great amphitheatres and a long tradition of using dramatic arts to convey religious and moral themes - but they never used it, because God didn't put His hand upon it! God didn't ordain it, and that's why I oppose drama - God doesn't put His hand on drama, God puts His hand on His word. One writer has said that the wisdom of the apostolic methodology has been borne out by the fact that it was when the gospel was being transmitted primarily by plays and symbolism that true Christianity began to sink under the weight of superstition.
Can I just explain what that means? During that time before the Reformation, when dramatics and men's wisdom came above the wisdom of God, God's word was suppressed under the superstition of Rome. From the Reformation we got our Bibles - Hallelujah, and praise God - but can I say to evangelicalism at large in our land: we are in danger of returning precisely to the state of affairs that we were in before the Reformation by reviving teaching methodology that belonged to the medieval church of Rome. 'The Passion of Christ', the film, is identical, critically, in all its aspects to the passion plays of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages - and do you know what God's word says in 1 Corinthians 1 and verse 18? 'It is by the foolishness of preaching that God has ordained to save some', the 'kerigma' - that is the message and the method preached, the cross, the preaching of the cross, the logos - not visual, but the word. In Galatians 3, I don't have time to turn to this, I hope you'll bear with me I want to spend a bit of time, I know I'm going over, but listen - in Galatians 3 and verse 1, Paul said to the Galatians: 'O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, who has cast a spell and took you away from the liberty that you were in in the grace of Christ. You who Christ was crucified among, you saw Christ crucified among you' - and then he goes on in verse 3 to say, that it was by the hearing of faith that they saw Christ crucified among them! You take that down, verse 3 of Galatians 3, it was the hearing of faith.
What has happened today is that the wisdom of men has replaced the wisdom of God. Do you know that for the first four centuries of the history of the early church, of its existence, there were no pictures of the Lord Jesus Christ at all, not even to aid evangelism, not one picture - and they were the ones who could have had the pictures if they wanted to. Andrew Watkins, who you will know does the web site 'Preach The Word', he met a friend recently and they intimated they were going to see the film. Andrew told them of the detrimental effects that it can have, and the response was, after they pondered these things and even agreed I think with some of them: 'Well, I'm just going because it will open my eyes' - I assume he means it will open his eyes to what the Lord Jesus Christ went through. Do you know what that is saying in default? 'The Scriptures are insufficient to open my eyes to what has happened to Christ' - now am I wrong in saying that?
We are returning to the very state of affairs today in Ulster for which our first Protestant forefathers died. I'll tell you this: I don't care what the Baptists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Church of Ireland - whatever you like - the Roman Catholic Church do, I would rather stand with the men that burned and bled and died for these principles than capitulate - would you? My friends, this is not just hair-splitting. One writer said it is impossible to make a coherent argument against the use of the crucifix in a church in teaching the gospel if we have already endorsed the use of a movie that portrays the crucifixion. This film, in essence, is an animated crucifix! That's exactly what it is. I have come to the conclusion that a movie is not a method or a medium that God has chosen to communicate the gospel, and I would encourage you to read: 'The Menace of the Religious Movie' by A. W. Tozer - it is not the best opportunity for evangelism! Can I say this to you? We hardly know of any one apart from the thief on the cross who was converted by seeing the Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh dying, it was the preaching of the cross that did the trick!
Can I give you the last reason why I would be adverse to seeing this film myself? This is a more subjective reason. Billy Graham said, after seeing a private sitting of this film before it was released, 'Every time I preach or speak about the cross, the things I saw on the screen will come to my mind'. That's why I don't want to go. I don't want to be sitting around the Lord's Table, and Jim Caviezel comes to my mind hanging on the cross - who incidentally will be in a film about Bobby Jones, the champion golfer, in a couple of weeks. On the 26th of March he's Jesus Christ the Incarnate Son of God, in the month of April he's Bobby Jones - is that the face you want impaled on your mind as the Lord Jesus? I'll tell you: if you go to this film this week, and I'm not telling you to go or not to go - that's for your conscious decision - but I know if I went, next Lord's day morning I might as well have a portrait of that man on that wall and fall down and worship him. The scenes are so graphic in this film that I think it would be nigh impossible to erase them from your mind!
The glory of the incorruptible God has been made into the image of a corruptible man, and I do believe it is a violation of the second commandment not to make a graven image of anything. It doesn't matter whether he's tall and handsome and dark, even though the Lord was without form or comeliness that when we should see Him there is no beauty that we should desire Him. No matter how good looking Jim Caviezel is, he cannot radiate the nature of God that was in my Lord Jesus Christ. Although his eyes might look lovingly at the folk in the cinema, it is not a divine look for only Christ can give the divine look.
Oh dear, the last reason, and I'm rushing through this. I believe this film will produce a plethora of spurious spiritual experiences. You know, if you sit in a film, whether it be The Titanic - and I'm not advising you to go and see these films, I'm just making an illustration - or Saving Private Ryan, or something of an emotional tear-jerking nature, you will come out affected emotionally. You may even cry, weep buckets - some of you women are professionals at it! But the fact of the matter is: it doesn't make one iota of difference to your spiritual state before God. God does not want your sympathy in a cinema, He wants repentance and faith towards God. Do you remember, the Lord Jesus Christ was going to Calvary, and He turned to those women of Jerusalem who were weeping for Him, and what that He say? 'Weep not for me, but weep for your children and for yourselves'.
This film will also promote an ecumenical climate, as it has already done. Don't attack this film, and go out of your way to do it in front of believers, explain why Christ died, use it for telling the story of the Lord Jesus Christ, use the tools that are available to you - we're producing tracts, and giving tracts on 'The Passion', not in critique but in a way of evangelism to reach people with the message of the cross. Take these principles and apply them to your life in everything, but particularly in relation to this film.
Maybe you're in our gathering and you're not saved, and you don't really know what the cross of Christ means. Well, why not have a word with me afterwards? We have a desire for souls to be saved, there's no doubt about that, but we've a greater desire - and I say this - a greater desire that the integrity of our Lord Jesus Christ be preserved. That is more important than my soul going to hell, do you know that?
Our Father, we thank Thee for Thy will beloved Son in whom Thou art well and eternally pleased. We thank Thee for His sacrifice, that precious blood that flowed for sin. The life of the flesh is in the blood, oh our Father, we thank Thee that that blood that was shed with the life that was given, and the soul that was poured out and that was cursed for our sin - Oh God we pray that everybody, whether they see this film or not, would appreciate Christ, and would be saved by His grace. Give us wisdom in these days, Lord these are difficult days to know the path to trod. May Thy word always be a light unto our feet, and a lamp unto our path, for Christ's sake we pray, Amen.
------------------------
Transcribed by:
Andrew Watkins
Preach The Word.
March 2004
www.preachtheword.com
info@preachtheword.com
This sermon was delivered at The Iron Hall Assembly in Belfast, Northern Ireland, by Pastor David Legge, and deals with the controversy surrounding a movie due for release in the UK on Friday 26th March 2004. It was transcribed from the tape entitled "Behind The Scenes Of The Passion Movie - Is It A Christian Movie?" - Transcribed by Andrew Watkins, Preach The Word.
All material by Pastor Legge is copyrighted. However, these materials may be freely copied and distributed unaltered for the purpose of study and teaching, so long as they are made available to others free of charge, and the copyright is included. These materials may not, in any manner, be sold or used to solicit "donations" from others, nor may they be included in anything you intend to copyright, sell, or offer for a fee. This copyright is exercised to keep these materials freely available to all.