An Adventist Perspective on Mel Gibson's ‘Passion’ and Theater-Going in 2004, pt. 2

Larry Kirkpatrick ++ Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists ++ March 13, 2004

Billy Graham said that, “The Passion of the Christ, is a lifetime of sermons in one movie” (Newsweek, February 16). He also said that “No one who views this film's compelling imagery will ever be the same,” (http://www.seabourn.org/newsletters/0401/, accessed March 12, 2004, 5:10 p.m. PST), and, “Every time I preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and mind.” (http://www.passionchrist.org/, accessed March 12, 2004, 5:12 p.m. PST). Do you really want to go see this movie? Pay close attention to what follows before you answer.

Those who have had the most to say about this movie have been Evangelicals. As you will see, Ellen White's century-ago statements are all-too up-to-date: “Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed… ” (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, p. 563).

All too surely, the clock has never missed one tick between the day she penned those lines and this. The hour when we shall face the realities of Revelation chapter 13 hastens.

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 non-Protestant theological perspective, and let that become their mental image of what Jesus is all about? Of what the gospel is all about? Let me be very plain. You should not go to the theater to see this movie. In fact, you will not die if you don't see this movie.

Those making the most noise have been the Evangelicals, and but few have asked, What are the Catholics themselves saying? But it is at precisely this place that we must tarry. Remember, we are dealing with a film produced by a very traditionalist Catholic. Although the Evangelicals are coming out of the theaters urging that the film is so historically accurate, we will see otherwise in a few moments! The remainder of this message is mostly devoted to seeing what the Bible says and what the Catholics are saying.

Will Mel Evangelize the Evangelicals?

In the National Catholic Register, there is an article by Roman Catholic Steven D. Greydanus titled, “Will Mel Evangelize the Evangelicals?” Here are the first few lines: “Protestants have attracted much attention in recent weeks by trumpeting their hopes that Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ will prove a great evangelistic tool.… What relatively few have noticed is the extent to which these groups are themselves being evangelized.” (http://www.catholic.net/us_catholic_news/template_article.phtml?channel_id=1&article_id=1047, accessed March 12, 2004, 5:21 p.m. PST). What groups? The various Protestants. And what does this Catholic say is happening to them? They “are themselves being evangelized” (emphasis added).

Now hear this. It is our people who are being evangelized. Check this quotation from Greydanus' article: “As non-Catholics watch the film, they will begin to sense, alongside the gospel of grace they know and love, a sensibility at work that might at first seem strange to them.” Notice here that alongside the gospel as understood by Protestants they will pick up something new to them. At first it might seem strange to them. But that is only at first. What could he be talking about? He is talking about our opening ourselves up to the Roman Catholic “gospel” of salvation by works.

Historically Accurate?

Evangelicals have hailed the film as being historically accurate, perhaps because of three factors:

1. It seems as though everyone is saying it is historically accurate; this is just the echo factor; lemmings echoing other lemmings.
2. The movie dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin, with English subtitles, lending an air of presumed historical accuracy.
3. The movie is designed to evoke deep emotion, and frankly, viewers come out so moved and so desensitized by the conscience-numbing violence that they want the movie to be historically accurate.

The Small Slice

What few have realized is the extent to which the movie is a blend of biblical facts with Catholic superstitions. But before we consider that, let's pause for a moment together to think. What Gibson has done is to make a movie (supposedly) based on the last 12 hours of the life of Christ. He left out 99% of the life of Christ and focused on just a half a day of it. What do you get if you do this? What if you were to be truly accurate and do this? Would you be at risk of slanting the message of the Bible?

So for starters, taking such a narrow slice of the life of Jesus is only to take part of the Bible. Even if you depicted everything accurately (when ever has Hollywood accurately portrayed the things of Scripture?), even if you took the greatest care, you would not give a complete picture.

But the Bible mainly focuses on about three-and-a-half years of the life of Christ. How many hours is that? It is 30,648 after you peel off the last twelve hours. The movie represents a very limited slice out of Christ's life, hence a very readily pliable segment out of the whole. But let's keep moving. Let's look at the distortions injected into these 12 hours by Gibson.

Distortions Courtesy of Catholicism

First of all, the movie is hardly even really based on the Scriptural accounts. Instead, it is comprised largely of three devotional traditions from Roman Catholic superstition: (1) The 14 Stations of the Cross, (2) the Five Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, and (3) the tradition of private visions written by Catholic mystics. In this case, the major contributing author is the 18th century nun, Anne Emmerich, a stigmatist. (Stigmatists were those who were said to bleed at their hands, head, and feet—the same places where Jesus was wounded.)

Before the movie even gets to the sorrowful mysteries or the stations of the cross, it incorporates the visions of Anne Emmerich. For example, the movie starts in the garden of Gethsemane. In the movie, he is there in the garden tempting Jesus, adding these words: "Takest thou even this sin upon thyself? Art thou willing to bear its penalty? Art thou prepared to satisfy for all these sins?" This is found in Emmerich's The Dolorous [Sorrowful] Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, p. 100.

Garden Beating, Jesus Thrown Off Bridge

Near the beginning of the movie, Jesus is treated with great brutality before He even is led out of the garden. The beating starts there. He is thrown off a bridge landing on a rock—and survives. That is just page 132 from Emmerich. Even she says that if God did not miraculously intervene Jesus would have died right there. Of course, inspired writings say nothing suggesting that Jesus was beaten in the garden or that as He was taken from there He was thrown off a bridge. This is Emmerich.

Perhaps you know that the 14 stations of the Cross are a conglomeration of Scriptural elements with Catholic superstition, fixed at 14 by Pope Clement XII (1730-1740). Interestingly, Emmerich has a whole chapter on the origin of the so-called way of the cross. Here are some of those interesting lines:

When Jesus was taken before Herod, John led the Blessed Virgin and Magdalen over the parts which had been sanctified by his footsteps. They again looked at the house of Caiphas, that of Annas, Ophel, Gethsemani, and the Garden of Olives; they stopped and contemplated each spot where he had fallen, or where he had suffered particularly; and they wept silently at the thought of all he had undergone. The Blessed Virgin knelt down frequently and kissed the ground where her Son had fallen, while Magdalen wrung her hands in bitter grief, and John, although he could not restrain his own tears, endeavoured to console his companions, supported, and led them on. Thus was the holy devotion of the ‘Way of the Cross’ first practised; thus were the Mysteries of the Passion of Jesus first honoured, even before that Passion was accomplished, and the Blessed Virgin, that model of spotless purity, was the first to show forth the deep veneration felt by the Church for our dear Lord. How sweet and consoling to follow this Immaculate Mother, passing to and fro, and bedewing the sacred spots with her tears. But, ah! who can describe the sharp, sharp sword of grief which then transfixed her tender soul… she suffered with Jesus, sharing with him not only the sufferings of his bitter Passion, but likewise that ardent desire of redeeming fallen man by an ignominious death, which consumed him.… In this touching manner did the most pure and holy Virgin lay the foundation of the devotion called the Way of the Cross; thus at each station, marked by the sufferings of her Son, did she lay up in her heart the inexhaustible merits of his Passion, and gather them up as precious stones or sweet-scented flowers to be presented as a choice offering to the Eternal Father in behalf of all true believers. (Emmerich, p. 191, bolded emphasis added).

The stations of the cross have to do with soaking up magic merit. Mary is said to have done so and thus believers are to repeat the devotion over and over. Notice that at each place where Jesus fell, and where Mary stopped afterwards in memory of His sufferings, she accrued merit for God's people! This is purest heresy. But it is foundational to the mystical, unbiblical, Catholic teaching that permeates this movie. Let's look at one very important Scripture now before we pass those out. I want to ask you, Was Mary with Jesus throughout His agony? Join me at John 19:25-27. There we find that the New Testament records only one occasion during this period of Christ's suffering where Mary was present.In fact, Matthew, Mark, and Luke make no mention of Mary present during these hours at all. Yet, as we will see, the movie is filled with Mary, Mary, everywhere Mary! We have nothing against Mary, but we want to be true to Scripture. So keep this in mind.

Let's look at the chart now that we are passing out, comparing all these things. Please note that this is compiled from several items written by others; I have not seen the movie, and have no intention of darkening the door of any theater or buying the DVD.

Core of This Sermon

While we undertake in this sermon to shien the light on this movie by showing what the Catholics are saying about it, a compilation of quotes from Catholics does not a sermon make. A true sermon is mor ethan a commentary on the errors current in one place in time. We are gathered here to hear the word from God, about God. Therefore we now pass to you the handout we have prepared where we will be looking up several verses. See the three columns. The first column identifies the section of the Passion according to the so-called stations of the cross and the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary. The second column has hte pertinent Scriptures to compare (or, in some cases, the obvious lack of Scriptures). The third column, the large one on the right, notes specifics in the movie or in the writings of Anne Emmerich or other Catholic writings which show what embellishments have been woven into the film. (If you are reading this online, print out the following handout and join us in looking up the texts: The Passion movie Compared to the Bible Handout (3 pages, PDF format).

More From the Catholics

Let us hear now in closing from some more of the Catholic conversation we are not being told about! Make sure you are sitting down. First, from a Catholic priest:

There are many wonderful details in the film that will only be noticed by those who are familiar with the richness of Catholic tradition and, especially, with The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Anne Catherine Emmerich's visionary account of Our Lord's sufferings. All of these elements make the movie profoundly Marian and Eucharistic. Gibson shows that Mary's participation in her Son's sufferings is not simply that of a loving mother; it is the sharing of the ‘New Eve’ in the Redemption accomplished by the new Adam. Her faith is so close to sight, her love so rich in pardon and understanding that she becomes a still point of peace even in the midst of the physical and moral violence of her Son's sufferings. Gibson's film will create new and unforgettable images of Mary: Mary who soaks up her Son's blood from the paving stones; Mary who runs to Him as He falls; Mary whose communion with her Son's sacrifice is as obvious as the blood on her lips and cheek at the foot of the Cross.” (Rev. John Horgan, “With gratitude—A Priest Views The Passion,” Catholic Educator's Resource Center, (January, 2004), http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0199.html, accessed March 4, 2004, 1:50 p.m. PST).

Returning now to Greydanus' article, do you know how he finished? With this paragraph:

All across the Bible Belt, Protestant churches are challenging their members to take their ‘unchurched’ friends to see The Passion of the Christ. Perhaps Catholics should make a point of going with their Protestant friends—and then pointing out what their friends aren't hearing about the film in their own churches.

Friends, the Catholics are surprised. Let's see what another one says, this fellow being Friar Eric Forbes:

What surprises me most about the whole ‘Passion’ phenomenon sweeping the nation is the way Christian evangelicals have showered adulation on the film.

These evangelicals are the heirs of a school of Christianity that protested against the use in church of the visual in depicting the physical agony and death of Jesus. As a matter of fact, one of the first things the reformers did in Geneva and Zurich was take out of the churches all religious art and representation, and, if they allowed a cross at all, it was a bare one with no ‘corpus,’ or body of Christ.

Interestingly, the film fulfills the same role a Catholic statue of the scourged Christ has, and I venture to say that the film depicts the sufferings of Christ in more graphic ways than any statue I have ever seen. Are people finally getting it?

I am even more surprised by the warm reception given the film by evangelicals when one considers the strong Marian sub-theme running throughout the movie. She clearly takes second billing, and hearts were crying in the auditorium not only in sympathy for the sufferings of the Son, but also for the heart-breaks of the Mother seeing the Son.

But what prods my curiosity even more about this fond embrace of the film by evangelicals is the absence of protests against the extra-biblical scenes in the movie. These scenes, such as the towels Pilate's wife gives Mary, are nowhere in Scripture, but are taken instead from the ecstatic visions of a German Catholic nun who died in 1824, Anne Catherine Emmerich. From her sick bed, on which she also suffered the stigmata, or wounds of Christ, Emmerich was mystically transported across time and space to eye-witness the biblical account, adding many details to the story not found in the four Gospels. (Fr. Eric Forbes, “Extra-biblical Imagery Unfolds in ‘Passion’” at http://www.guampdn.com/news/stories/20040310/opinion/42773.html, accessed February 10, 2004, 5:28 p.m. PST).

But the most astonishing item we will share today I have saved for last. For now.

Mary, Co-redemptrix?

We wanted to see what the Catholics are saying about this film. Consider now some excerpts from Mark Miraville's article, found at Catholic.org, titled, “Gibson's Passion and Mary Co-redemptrix” (bolded emphasis added):

In a recent interview with Mel Gibson, Christianity Today referred to Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic who ‘likes the Tridentine Latin Mass and calls Mary Co-redemptrix.’ There's another well-known Catholic who also calls the Mother of Jesus the Co-redemptrix: His name is Pope John Paul II. He has done so on six occasions during his post Vatican II pontificate.

What does the Co-redemptrix title mean? From the Catholic perspective, it refers to Mary's unique human participation with Jesus (and entirely subordinate to her divine son) in the historic work of saving humanity from sin… God willed that the Mother of Jesus participate in this redemptive process like no other creature.

In light of her Immaculate Conception in which she was conceived without original sin through the foreseen merits of her Son, Mary is the sinless virgin Mother in total ‘enmity’ or opposition with Satan, who becomes the ideal human partner with Jesus in the salvation of the human race. Early Christian writers called her the ‘New Eve,’ who together with Jesus, the ‘New Adam,’ accomplished the work of salvation for all the fallen children of the original Adam and Eve.…

From early in the film it is clear that Mary alone has a special participation in Jesus' saving mission. As the soldiers of the Sanhedrin bring Jesus in to stand trial before Caiaphas, Jesus looks at Mary from across the courtyard and Mary says softly, ‘It has begun, Lord… so be it.’ The Mother knows that the mission of human redemption has begun.…

Throughout the film, it is only Jesus and Mary who see their mutual adversary Satan, in his androgenized form. During the way of the cross, Mary slides her way through the crowd to accompany her tortured son carrying his cross when she spots Satan as he parallels her movements on the other side of the crowd. She recognizes her antagonist, looks at him for a moment, and then refixes her gaze on her suffering son.…

After the scourging, Mary is inspired to soak up the blood of the Savior, splattered throughout the area of the pillar, with linens. She alone knows that each drop of this divine blood is supernaturally redemptive.

Many times during the savage process of the passion (for example, at the scourging, during the way of the cross, at Calvary), it is the glance of his Mother that gives Jesus the human support that strengthens him to proceed to the next stage of suffering. After one fall on the Via Dolorosa, Mary crawls next to her mutilated son and re-assures him: ‘I'm here.’ Jesus regains some focus and replies to her concerning the mission: ‘See Mother, I make all things new.’

It is not Jesus alone, but all the disciples (Peter, John, the Magdalene), who call Mary, ‘Mother.’ On Calvary, Mary receives from Jesus her designation as universal Mother.

As Jesus, who is affixed to the cross, is being raised up from the ground, Mary, whose hands clutched the rocky ground as her sons' hands were nailed to the cross, rises from her kneeling position in proportion to her son's being raised on the cross. She then stands upright as her son is now upright on the gibbet.

After some time, Mary approaches the cross with John, the beloved disciple. She kisses Jesus' bloodied foot, and pleads for permission to die with him at this climactic moment of redemption: ‘Flesh of my flesh, Heart of my heart, my Son. Let me die with you!’ Jesus responds to his mother and to John: ‘Woman, behold your son. Son, behold your mother.’ As the fruit of her sufferings with Jesus, Mary becomes the spiritual mother of all beloved disciples, and of all humanity redeemed at Calvary.

In The Passion of the Christ, Gibson has accomplished a Marian feat no pastor or theologian could achieve in the same way. He has given the world through its most popular visual medium a portrayal of a real human mother, whose heart is inseparably united to her son's heart. This mother's heart is pierced to its very depths as she spiritually shares in the brutal immolation of her innocent son. Hers is an immaculate heart which silently endures and offers this suffering with her son for the same heavenly purpose: to buy back the human race from sin.

Mary Co-redemptrix has been given her first international film debut in a supporting role, and it's a hit. (Mark Miravalle, “Gibson's Passion and Mary Co-redemptrix,” http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=772, accessed 7:00 p.m. PST).

What is perhaps the most true, is what Paula Fredrickson said. “Mr. Gibson's real victory—was to pull off an ‘ecumenical cross-marketing coup’ by bridging a very old gap between many conservative Catholics and Protestants.” (Paul Frederickson open citation by A. Larry Ross, “Passionate Encounter,” (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ross200403100900.asp, accessed March 10, 2004, 7:24 a.m. PST). Whether it is marketing genius that put emphasis on the anti-semitism question to the silencing of the historical divide between Protestants and Catholics, or just the way things developed, the fact is that the movie has become a bridge extended deep into the camp of Protestantism, along with a one-way escalator leading to the Papacy.

How Should We React to This Film?

Well, then, how should we react to this film, this situation? People are being affected; some area for the first time thinking seriously about God. But this film is a deep misportrayal of God. It absolutely cannot be teaching the Jesus Seventh-day Adventists know and love. It is teaching a counterfeit Christ, an antichrist. Can we use a tool that teaches antichrist?

Remember, the Catholic essence of the film means that,

1. The film is based upon teaching salvation the Roman Catholic way, through a combination of Jesus' suffering and our own suffering through penance and imitation of Christ. This is not the gospel your Protestant forefathers knew!
2. The film is a living Eucharist/Mass, drawing the parallel between the continuously repeated re-sacrificing of Christ in the Catholic Mass and the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ at the Cross.
3. The film is filled to overflowing with Roman Catholic superstitions and traditions blended in to the whole, thus memorializing and teaching the Roman Catholic dogma that makes Scripture PLUS tradition the spiritual authority. Is it our business to further the cause of those who would prefer to include the Roman Catholic church tradition a authority, or are we those who hold to the Bible as the final authority?
4. Most of all, the film is a gross misrepresentation of Mary, mother of Jesus, so that she is added to almost every scene and in fact is presented as co-redeemer with Christ.

The fact is, every one of the points listed above is HERESY of the first order. Added to this is the extraordinary desensitizing violence and emotional-response evoking sick violence. People are blaming Gibson too much for the violence. He may excel in such movies, but the fact is, anyone reading Emmerich will know that she is five times more violent than Gibson left to himself. Gibson is simply being faithful to the false visions of Anne Emmerich!

Conclusion

We should consider telling those who ask us about the film that:

1. This film is built on a very definite ideology about what salvation is and means that is not Christian, but pagan.
2. This film should be an occasion to remind everyone that there were and are Protestants and Catholics, and why there were and are Protestants and Catholics.
3. This film is not true to the biblical account by any measure. It is a Catholic fantasy.
4. The film teaches an antichrist picture of Jesus.

Protect your mind. Fill it with Scripture. Learn what the Bible says about Jesus unencumbered by Roman Catholic superstition and tradition and theology that teaches a soul-destroying concept about what salvation is and what God is like. Beware.

Next week, Part three: A comparison of the salvation theology of the Bible and that of the movie The Passion.

Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick is an ordained minister of the gospel. Since 1994 he has served in the American Southwest as pastor to several churches. He received his BA in Religion from Southern Adventist University in 1994 and a Master of Divinity from Andrews University in 1999 with a specialization in Adventist Studies. While in Michigan he was employed by the General Conference at the White Estate Berrien Springs branch office. More important than his scholastic preparation has been his immersion in the biblical and Spirit of Prophecy materials. He is author of the 2003 book Real Grace for Real People. Presently he serves as Pastor of the Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists, located near Loma Linda, California. Larry is married to Pamela. The couple presently live in Highland, California along with their two children, Etienne and Melinda.