 |
An Adventist Perspective on Mel Gibson’s “Passion,” and Theater-Going in 2004
Is the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s prohibition of theater attendance a quaint absurdity from the past long-overdue for the circular file?
Mel Gibson’s exceedingly Roman Catholic movie, “The Passion of the Christ” opened this week to sell-out crowds. This movie has been endorsed by personalities including Billy Graham and Rick Warren, and by other Catholics and Protestants of every stripe. Why is it that both Protestants and Catholics alike are heaping praise upon a movie made by a Catholic that incorporates in itself a truckload of obviously Roman Catholic teaching and mysticism?
This movie is a perfect illustration of the kind of subtle dilemmas we are facing and shall yet more frequently face. Should a Christian member of a church with a long-standing prohibition against theater attendance, drop all of that apparently “Victorian baggage” overboard for the greater good of going to see what is anticipated to be the flick of the year, the conversational item on numerous tongue-tips? Wouldn’t not watching the movie be tantamount to missing a great witnessing opportunity and also revealing yourself to be a cultural neanderthal at the same time?
Not at all.
Now before we explain, let’s back-up and call to mind certain points. First, a sermon is not about putting people into a moral sleep; it is not about making everyone feel comfortable with the status quo. We are here to challenge you. We want you to think. Sometimes you will have to think outside of the very comfortable boxes we so often are sitting in although we know it not. You might not agree with what you are about to hear. But I want you to think. If you came here for the T-shirt, you may be in the wrong place.
Why are so many Christians ready to drill a hole in their head and insert a wire connected to a Hollywood production based on an unambiguous theological perspective and let that become their mental image of what Jesus is all about? Of what the gospel is all about? Gibson said his intention with this movie was to “transcend language with the message through an image.” (Russell Hittinger and Elizabeth Lev, “Gibson’s Passion,” http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0403/opinion/hittingerlev.html, accessed February 28, 2004, 8:01 a.m. PST.) And that is very Catholic.
Dramatics and theatrics are a very ancient practice, long preceding the crucifixion of Christ. Neither Jesus nor Paul needed nor practiced theatrical evangelism. They did not incorporate in their work acting and emotional mind-bending. In fact, there was a concern that the truth never be overshadowed by the medium. Join me at 1 Corinthians 1:17-31:
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
What is the warning? Beware the wisdom of words. Beware that which could make the Cross of none effect. You say “Who or what can overshadow the Cross?” And the Bible says, “Beware.” Paul indicates that the Cross can be made of none effect. Or does Paul strike you as a man in bondage to random phobias?
Paul knew that the old-fashioned way, the preaching of the Cross, was foolishness to the contemporary ears and expectations of his age. The sneer of the socially and intellectually self-satisfied is nothing new to us. The Cross seemed laughable to the sensibilities of the theater-going Romans and Greeks, a story that was the height of absurdity.
Now if they had dressed it up with some spectacular acting and special effects, marketed (as some are doing today) facsimile nails like those that had gone through Jesus’ hands, maybe they would have come out to see. Maybe if they had represented the gospel with as much gore as possible, spurting blood, and suffering and darkness, maybe they would have listened. But Paul says no. He says beware. He says that the Cross can be obscured by human impositions.
“Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world?” asks Paul. Where are the great thespians and poets and wise men? Caught up in the pagan mythologies and petty intellectual toys of the day, too certain of themselves to be interested by a quaint desert religion. Where were the great theaters and pantheon squares? Why, in the great Roman and Greek cities, that’s where.
People are saying that Gibson’s film is powerful, that he is a master of the cinema. They are saying that he is preaching in the language of the age. They are as much as saying “Where is the old-fashioned country preacher, the old-saws who refuse to update? This spectacle is the height of cinematic skill and technology. It moves the emotions unlike any dusty old sermon.” And the Bible says, “hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”
By the foolishness of preaching, God brings to nothing the wisdom of the world. Notice, “The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom.” Everyone is riding the cultural crest of their social group. They are trying to surf through on the passing foam that they hold in high esteem.
What do we require today in the 21st century Western world? Do we require wisdom? Do we require a carefully-scripted emotional ride? Is it in Heaven’s order that we pump ourselves up with the cinematic equivalent of a Six Flags theme park? Is that what we need to have a powerful religious experience? Or is that just what we need to have a powerful experience? There is a difference. Can we discern it?
Again, what was the problem of the Jew? “The Jews require a sign.” What do we require today? Is it gore and mayhem? Is it to see a man portraying Jesus tortured? Is it to see the blood-squirting and the mindless violence more reminescent of a Mad Maxx film than the pages of Scripture?
One concern you might consider is that the crowds who attend will confuse an emotional experience for a religious or a spiritual experience. Don’t expect them to be the same thing. An emotional experience can masquerade as a spiritual one, but an authentic Christian experience cannot masquerade as a merely emotional one. Emotions are not bad; they are a gift of God. But they are to be touched in a proper way, under the sway of the higher powers, the reason and the intellect, in the presence of the Spirit. Not a spirit. The Spirit.
An unconverted person can be emotionally activated quite easily. But what about spiritual activation? Is this film really going to be a great agency of spiritual activation? They say now that Catholics are waking up, returning to church as a result of this movie--to the Catholic Church. Is that something that the Holy Spirit is doing? Sending these people straight back to Babylon? I think not. After all, the Bible says that the word from Heaven is, “Come out of her, My people!” (Revelation 14:8; 18:1-5).
This movie will certainly be an agency of emotional activation, but in contrast to spiritual activation. The scenes of gore and violence it shows will be revolting to the converted mind. Don’t forget Philippians 4:8: “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
Each of the four Gospels is a bit different. We really have five accounts too, of the life of Jesus, because we also have what Ellen G. White saw. Let me ask you, you who have read them all five: which one of the five inspired accounts we have of the life and death of Christ emphasizes gore and physical suffering? And your informed answer is, not one.
Why?
They had the Holy Spirit didn’t they? The Jews required a sign didn’t they? The Greeks wanted to see wisdom, surely they would have welcomed theatrical excellence. God wanted to bring them to salvation too. Why not make the New Testament a manual on how best to script scenes and act and dramatize and how to portray with the utmost in thespian valor the life and death of Christ? But no.
And I say to you, “The weakness of God is stronger than men.” He who made man knows what He is doing. He knows what will help our soul and what will hurt it.
What about Jesus? Didn’t He use drama? Join me at Mark 12:13-17:
And they send unto Him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch Him in His words. And when they were come, they say unto Him, Master, we know that Thou art true, and carest for no man: for Thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye Me? bring Me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And He saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto Him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at Him.
There it is: the evidence. A very dramatic scene, am I right? But wait. Remember, there are moments pregnant with intensity because of the moral weight, just as there are humanly-generated moments when with flourish and carefully thought-out design--what we might call with a flair for the dramatic--we have done things. Those are usually moments when the real is portrayed by the unreal. But such was nowhere in sight when Jesus taught that day. The coin was mere artifact, an object-lesson concerning truth was taught by Jesus calling for the coin and asking whose image and superscription was upon its face. But the artifact did not overpower the lesson. The coin was immediately forgotten. The lesson remained.
Jesus was inspired by the same Spirit as Paul and operated under the same wisdom as Paul, a divine one. He knew that the artifact must never overpower moral truth. Jesus was the Master teacher. And He was always careful so that the truth was never overshadowed by the medium, so that the artifact never outshone the moral. Somehow I am led to wonder whether Mel Gibson’s production has passed that test. I am not doubting his love for God as he understands him. But I am saying, all that glitters is not gold.
For some years we pastored in Nevada. I loved to go out into the hills and explore, to hike and walk through and take up fascinating minerals and rocks. There is considerable silver and gold out there, but far more commonly what does one come across? Various pyrites; what we call “fool’s gold.” It shines, it sparkles and fascinates, but it isn’t worth much but for selling to tourists up at Virginia City for souvenirs. I have a concern brothers and sisters on the journey. I wonder if we are not fascinated by the glitter and the shine and that we overlook the fact that God is not known for using Hollywood--the very equivalent of Nazareth, Egypt, and Sodom and Gomorrah. Do not films after this order train one to respond emotionally rather than morally?
Are productions like Mel Gibson’s movie training us to feed the emotional at
the expense of the moral? Kurt Feich asked this question about the movie: “ask
yourself the following question: Is this how God really wants us to evangelize the
‘unsaved’ TODAY.... by overwhelming their SENSES in an EXPERIENTIAL
display of realistic torture and sadism that would sear their minds and others who
sees this? Experientialism trumping the preaching of the Word?” (Berit Kjos,
“Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion,”’ at
"http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/04/passion.htm, accessed February 28, 2004,
7:19 a.m. PST).
Andrew J. Webb writes:
We need to remember that the last time dramatic presentations replaced preaching as the main vehicle by which the truth of the Bible was communicated was during the medieval times when the church refused to allow the translation of the Bible into common languages and when in place of the preaching and teaching of God’s word, the common people were given visual presentations such as Passion Plays, statues, relics, and icons.
These things were designed, like most visual imagery, to play upon the emotions and stimulate a response; but the ability to evoke an emotional response via imagery or drama is not the same as successfully transmitting the Gospel.(Berit Kjos, “Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion,”’ http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/04/passion.htm, accessed February 28, 2004, 7:19 a.m. PST).
Tom Carter saw the film, he asked,
Another clever device was how, when God caused the veil of the temple of Herod to be split in two, top to bottom, that Gibson had the throne split in two as well.…But I’ll not argue the details. It was a nice poetic touch, Mel. Besides, who is to say the throne did not rent?A clever fellow indeed, this Mel Gibson. Welcome to the Bride, my brother in Christ.
Casting a woman as Satan? Though her gender is never obvious in the film, the part was played by the androgynous Rosalinda Celentano.… Her demeanor and countenance combined with the slow motion photography clearly depicted Satanic deviousness and hunger for evil. (Berit Kjos, “Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion,”’ at
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/04/passion.htm, accessed February 28, 2004, 7:19 a.m. PST).
There is much more to say; and it will wait for part two or three. But I want to share with you a most interesting letter from an Adventist who did go. I have removed the names and filled them with blanks in order to protect the privacy of anyone mentioned in the letter who might wish to remain anonymous. She wishes she had the words to describe her reaction. I would say God has given her the words. See what you think.
Dear _______,
I read your letter stating that you would not be going to see The Passion of The Christ. I felt that you had quite a compelling conviction about not viewing the last few hours of Christ’s life on the wide screen, in technicolor, etc.
I was undecided as whether to go or not. I had heard that it had an R rating for violence but was still curious. After all Billy Graham had heralded the movie, the Pope said that it was historically accurate, and several show hosts on the Christian radio station said they had gone to previews for the media and clergy and then raved about the movie.
The majority of all the information that I was able to get was that it would be a life changing experience and that if we really saw what Christ had endured during those hours we would be humbled and understand the great sacrifice that that Jesus had made for our sins. That we would know just how much He loved us and the mental and physical torture He went through knowing what was in store for him and knowing that He was going to be separated from His Father in heaven.
I still hadn’t made up my mind when I received a call from an old friend. She said that she had purchased four tickets and wanted _______ and I to join her and her husband. The church they go to had reserved several theaters and would be showing the movie on Tuesday evening before it would be released to the general public.
We talked about it and decided that it would be nice to share the experience in an audience of all Christians. I felt the atmosphere would be reverent and contribute to the experience of watching the events that led up to and the crucifixion of our Savior, the very act that enabled us to be saved from our sins.
My husband couldn’t go so my son, _______, went with me. He is turning __ in a couple of months and is recently back in church. He was baptised less than a year ago and still struggles with the Bible. He has tried every kind of religion, but came back to the church of his youth and I feel that Satan is working on him every chance he gets. It is just incredible sometimes the circumstances that are put in his way to overcome. It is a daily struggle and some days he wins and some days he looses.
We arrived at the theater and met our friends. Since both of the rooms were sold out to the church they let everyone in early so the usual search for the best seats went on for a while and soon everyone was settled down with their sodas, candy and soft drinks to watch Jesus be tortured and crucified.
The beginning of the movie started after the last supper in the garden when Jesus was praying and weeping while He was preparing for the end. It showed the beads of blood He sweat and the anquish in his face. The portrayal was very emotional. It showed satan verbally taunting Him and trying to make Him second guess what He was about to do. The soldiers soon arrived and bound Him in chains and rope and took Him away.
The sound of people eating popcorn and taking their cups in and out of the holders was very audible. All the while their Lord was being pulled by chains to His destiny.
Jesus mother entered into the movie when He was being mocked and Peter was denying Him. It showed Him being dragged back and forth until the croud was given the opportunity to release Barabbas or Jesus. The croud chose the murder and the soldiers were told to scourge Jesus in hopes that they would be satisfied with that. The angry croud gathered to watch our Lord being tied to a piller in the center of the courtyard. Mary was there and she witnessed a most brutal beating of her Son. I have never witnessed such savagery in any movie I have ever seen. Her tears, the tears of a mother for her son, were so realistic. The beating went on and on and on.
I stopped watching after a few minutes. Every once and a while I would look at the bottom of the screen to see if there were any subtitles. Mostly there was nothing, just the sound of the cat-of-nine-tails and the sticks with nails on them and the crowd jeering. As I looked around the theater at the people eating their snacks I sort of wondered if this was what it was like when the Romans fed the Christians to the lions and the people were in the collisium enjoying the afternoon.
After the most violent beating I have ever seen, both in graphic nature and duration, Jesus was dragged into the dungeon where a crown of what appeared to be barbed wire was placed on his head. The guards then took a stick and began hitting Him in the head and face driving the barbs into His forehead. That was when my son turned to me and said, “Mom, I have had enough. I’ll see you outside. Just call me when you come out and I will come and meet you.”
I sat there watching him slowly walk the stairs from the very top of the theater where we were sitting. I was ready to leave myself, but I was wondering what was wrong with me and why wasn’t I getting the same feeling of amazement and awe that Jesus loved me enough to die for me? Why wasn’t this account of the event moving me to tears like I had heard the radio personalities talk about? They said that it was a moving experience that all Christians should go see. Experience the love He had for us. If you see it you will be able to visualize just what a price He paid for our sins.
What was wrong with me! Was I the only one that was on sensory overload. I looked around to see if anyone else was leaving. To my surprise, every eye was riveted to the ‘bigger than life’ screen as the beating continued.
By now my stomach is beginning to turn. The eight year old that was sitting next to my son seemed to be unphased by the happenings unfolding in front of her. Her mother didn’t offer to take her out or even to comfort her even during the most brutal scenes.
I had to wonder what this Christian audience would have thought about this movie if the story wasn’t about Jesus. Would they have stood for this kind of brutality, would they have allowed their children to see this violence and quietly sat beside them eating popcorn. Truly, I believe if the story had been about any other person except for Jesus, the majority, if not all, of the Christians would have left the auditorium and protested to the management. But because it was about Jesus, it was somehow acceptable to watch and bring your children to this type of “documentary.”
I refocused on the screen as they were dragging what was portraited as my Savior’s bruised and bloody body down the street and thrusting His cross upon Him. That was when the beatings and blood splattering started again. I got up from my seat and walked down the long set of stairs to escape the exploitation of such a personal event; My Savior being persecuted and dying for my sins. My Jesus suffering the anguish of being separated from His Father so I could have everlasting life.
To my knowledge not one other person left the movie. That spoke loudly to me of the callousness of even those of us who call ourselves Christians.
The movie was supposed to be 1 1/2 hour long. I left at about 50 minutes during which I will guestimate 30 minutes was mostly beatings and viscous brutality.
I met my son outside where he was just finishing up a conversation with the pastor. He was still visibly upset and I was sick to my stomach. We walked around the mall for 20 minutes or so trying to take our minds off of what we had just seen but we just couldn’t get it out of our minds. We would stop the other one from talking about it only to bring up some other aspect of the brutality. We were in total disbelief of what we had just witnessed.
I am grieved over what hundreds of thousands of Christians will see tomorrow when this movie opens in thousands of theaters across the world. And even more so, the people who aren’t Christians who go to this movie to learn about Jesus and His love for us. If this is what the Lord wanted us to visualize, why isn’t the Bible more graphic? Why doesn’t it go on for chapters and chapters describing in colorful word pictures the wounds, the whips and what they looked like, etc. I could go on, however, I think you get my point.
I believe that the Bible doesn’t go on for chapters about the torturous events because the real story is the love that our Savior had for us. The life he lived as an example for us. Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, bretheren, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
I can’t begin to express the profound sadness that I feel at having seen part of this film. It was quite disturbing and I will see it over in my mind many times. I am sure other Christians and even Adventists may have a much different report than me, but I wonder just how many of the preceding reports are just people not wanting to stand up and be different or is it that our hearts have become so hard that we can look at our Lord being tortured while we sit comfortably and drink our diet Coke. I heard about the anti-Jewish slant and this, and that, but never did I actually hear about how the brutality was so sensationalized and overdone. If the actual scenes depicting beatings, violent flogging and hanging Him on the cross were removed, the whole movie would be reduced by approximately two-thirds or more. I understand now why some of the radio personalities report that churches will have clergy outside the theaters to answer questions and help people who have issues and need help to sort out the details of the movie and to let them know they are available if they have trouble with it after they go home. Apparently at one of the screenings a month ago or so, several of the pastors had to be carried out of the theater as they were overcome after viewing the movie.
_______ you were so right-on when you stood up for the reasons that you had for not going to see the film. I hope and pray that our Adventist churches get the word out that this movie is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. In my estimation this isn’t the kind of sensory input we need to see and hear to make our walk with the Lord more meaningful. We have the Bible for that!
I would like to be a journalist right now so I would have the gift of words at my command. But I believe you get my message.
Take care, _______.
Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” is a pastiche of the sayings of men blended with the sayings of God. The blending was done through the mind of a real “Historic Catholic.” Is this the kind of fare for which you would willingly drill a hole in your head and insert a drinking-straw? Not me.
It makes a very great deal of sense for us to be wise about what we allow through the filters, what we allow into RAM, what we permit to run on our CPU. Our spiritual pioneers were wise to urge us not to randomly fill our minds with fluff and filth if we want to really become like Jesus. Are we serious about that, or are we playing at it? If we are serious, our sources will be inspired ones. God is developing a unique people with a unique experience. How can we have that if we let our mind become the lodging place of the latest rubbish advertised by Catholics and Protestants alike? Something is wrong with that picture. Should we let others--whose viewpoints we know are loaded with error--elicit our emotions concerning the most sacred topics, or does that place us at risk of mistaking emotional response for the Holy Spirit or a religious response?
This was one point. Next time, the especially Catholic angle...
We can leave here today assured that we are part of the most up-to-date church, that when we uphold this seemingly archaic prohibition, we are actually at the cutting-edge of truth. Now some of us have something to think about. May God bless you.
