Stephen Prothero on “The Passion” in Opinion Journal:

Mr. Gibson’s idiosyncratic take on this medieval “Man of Sorrows” is plainly a product of American culture. It draws on the Bible, medieval passion plays and Roman Catholic Mariology, to be sure, but also on the macho brutality of the action-adventure movie (blood, gore, repeat) and the supernatural horror of the Gothic tradition of Edgar Allan Poe and Stephen King. In fact, all the tropes of the last genre–underground dungeon, shackles and chains, sadistic torturers, innocent maiden, stone-heavy architecture and supernatural terror–are in this film in spades. So is the tradition of the muscular Redeemer, sent to save us not only from our sins but also (in the words of the baseball evangelist Billy Sunday) from “flabby-cheeked, brittle-boned, weak-kneed, thin-skinned, pliable, plastic, spineless, effeminate, sissified, three-carat Christianity.”

But don’t quit yet. This is extremely perceptive, and in all the evangelical, niche-market fury to accept The Passion as divinely inspired, we can be blind to the fact that the movie is an artistic product of a culture. American culture, Catholic culture, evangelical culture and Hollywood culture. That doesn’t destroy the movie. Or its good impact. Look at the next paragraph.

Still, “The Passion of the Christ” is above all else a rebuke to contemporary American culture. Like a Jewish leader in the film who spits in Jesus’ eye during trial before the Sanhedrin, Mr. Gibson spits here in the eye of America’s many and malleable Jesuses, insisting that Christianity’s founder be understood not as the good Guy next door but, as the Nicene Creed puts it, as “very God of very God.”

This, I think, is the great gift The Passion has to give. It is precisely the movie to influence a media influenced culture. It is, as someone said, “Sunday School for the Kill Bill generation.” More than a few American pastors will have to ask if they are preaching Christ, or some life management guru? Who knows? Maybe someone may discover why Paul said “I thank my God that I knew nothing among you except Christ Crucified.”

Richard is a Canadian Baptist pastor. I thought his thoughts were worth posting and sharing.

Why I (probably) Won’t Go See The Passion- by Richard Campeau

The controversial film The Passion of the Christ, directed by superstar Mel Gibson, will be released in theaters on Ash Wednesday. So much has been said and written already that one hesitates to comment further. Nevertheless I feel I should write down my reasons for deciding in advance to not go see the film. I want to do this because, as a pastor, many people come to me, and many more will come, either to ask me what I think or to enthusiastically state that The Passion is a harbinger of revival. Such people are shocked when they hear that I’m not planning on going to see the film. Some have rebuked me for such non-conformity to the evangelical party line. My attitude, they charge, betrays a blatant disregard for the work that God intends to do in the souls of many. This short essay is my attempt to explain myself. It is simply the expression of my own reasons for staying away from this film. It is not in any way meant to bind anyones conscience in this matter.

It’s not about antisemitism or Gibson’s Catholicism.

I should state at the outset that my reasons for not wanting to see The Passion have little or nothing to do with what has been the primary point of controversy concerning this movie – its alleged antisemitism. While it is certainly true that Passion Plays have often been linked to flare-ups of antisemitism and violence against Jews it is not something that is intrinsic to the genre. This is particularly true in more modern versions of the Passion Play. In medieval times passion plays would often deliberately cast Jews as bloodthirsty Christ-killers. Modern passion plays, in my experience, are very careful to avoid such casting and to make the point that all are guilty, the Jews, the Romans and the audience. Despite all the negative press, Mel Gibson’s film appears to do this as well. It is an interesting and telling touch that the hands that are seen holding the spikes as they are hammered into Jesus hands are Gibson’s own hands. Even the director is guilty!

Furthermore I should state that my reluctance has nothing to do with any legalistic shunning of Hollywood and the movies. If any Christians conscience forbids them to go to the movies, they shouldn’t go. But this is certainly not my case. I enjoy cinema and an “R” rating (such as The Passion received) would not necessarily turn me away from a worthy film (though I would take it in consideration and I would want to know why it is so rated before I put my money down). Nor does my reason have to do with Mr. Gibson himself or his somewhat unusual religious persuasion (Note # 1) although I do think my fellow evangelicals could be more aware of Mr. Gibson’s views. He is certainly a strong and unapologetic believer in Christ and The Passion of the Christ is his labor of love. It is rather refreshing to hear faith in Christ promoted and defended by such a “high-ranking” Hollywood insider. I do wonder, however, how many evangelicals are aware of the details of Mr. Gibson’s faith, and particularly of his expressed belief that all non-Catholics (and he interprets “catholic” rather narrowly), including his godly protestant wife, are lost and headed for hell, even if they love and trust Jesus (Note # 2). Mr. Gibson, of course, is entitled to his views, and these in no way influence my decision to not see the film. But one can’t help but be amused at the thought of thousands of “seeker-sensitive” evangelicals flocking to see a film by a director whose vision of the faith is characterized by the Latin Mass, meatless Fridays, penance, and other such seeker-insensitive stuff.

So why won’t I go see The Passion of the Christ?

In the summer of 1980 I took a college course in cinema. I will freely admit that I thought it would provide easy credits. If one has to take a summer course it might as well be one in which much of the work consists in watching movies! It turned out, however, to be a somewhat traumatic experience. Week after week our class watched films like Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, which bluntly portrayed the violence and fallenness of the world. I vividly recall the effects such on-screen violence and despair had on me. It wasn’t good. For a day or two after each screening sadness and depression lurked. Going to class soon became a chore. This situation was perhaps made more difficult due to the fact that I had become a Christian just a couple of months before. The Beatitudes (Matthew 5) had become very important to me, like a mission statement for my life. But in the beatitudes, Jesus describes soft-hearted people (the poor in spirit; the meek; the merciful; etc.) and I found myself having to deal with images that would, if I allowed them, make me less sensitive and more hard-hearted than I felt I was called to be as a Christian. Perhaps my immature Christian faith led me to wrong conclusions about cinema, but ever since that summer I have preferred to stay away from movies that depict gratuitous violence.

Which brings me to The Passion.

Mel Gibson’s stated goal was to render the crucifixion of Christ as realistically as it can be rendered on film. This involves showing the violence of the crucifixion as graphically as possible and bearable. By all accounts he succeeded in this aim. Christian reviewer Steve Beard, in a favorable review, warns that “this is not a family-friendly Christian movie… The Passion is the most brutal movie you will probably ever see. People will be sobbing in the theaters or running out to get sick in the lobby.” He then adds that it “is the most sadistic and simultaneously holy thing I have seen.” (Note # 3)

This reminds me of a kind of preaching that I find particularly offensive. It is the kind of preaching that is usually brought out around Good Friday in which the preacher goes to great lengths in belaboring the details of the crucifixion, particularly the details concerning what was happening to Jesus physically. Such preaching rehearses the details of what happens to the internal organs of a crucifixion victim, or the effects of lactic acid build-up in the muscles, or how water and mucus gather in the lungs of the crucified and begin to drown him. Such descriptions, I think, are the revivalist’s cheapest trick. And I hate it!

I hate it not because it isn’t true – I know enough about biology and anatomy to know that it is. I hate it because it’s voyeuristic. I hate it because its not true New Testament preaching of the cross. The New Testament itself leaves such details implicit rather than explicit. The apostles saw no need for such graphic displays of gore. The readers know that dying nailed to a piece of wood is awful. No more needs to be said but that “they crucified Him” (Luke 24:20) and that “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24). Why should I want to see more than God saw fit to tell us about the most awful, scandalous event in the history of the cosmos? And what would seeing it do to my heart? Will seeing this really make me a better Christian (as has been claimed)? Is showing this to unbeliever really the key to bringing them to a knowledge of Christ? It might be good to remind ourselves that of all the Christians in the New Testament only a handful actually saw the events depicted in The Passion. Clearly the Holy Spirit doesn’t need people to have seen before they will believe. He didn’t then and he doesn’t now.

Frankly, I know all the truth I need to know about the cross from the gospels and the epistles. If I don’t want to be assaulted with violent words about the crucifixion why should I want to expose my fragile self to vivid pictures of my Savior’s suffering. I know what on-screen violence does to me. Its not good. And thats why I stay away from movies of cruel, gratuitous violence. For me this includes The Passion of the Christ.

Note # 1 – Mr. Gibson holds to traditionalist catholic beliefs which reject the changes of Vatican II.

Note # 2 – see Peter J. Boyer The Jesus War: Mel Gibson and The Passion, The New Yorker, September 15, 2003 On the web at http://www.wcnet.org/~bgcc/gibson.htm).

Note # 3 – Steve Beard, Brutal Passion, Good News Magazine, March/April 2004 on the web at http://www.goodnewsmag.org/magazine/2MarApr/ma04brutal_passion.htm

My Questions About “The Passion.”

I want to be really clear that I have not seen this movie. I will say I’ve devoted more than a year to learning about it, having written one of the first blog pieces on the film almost two years ago. I will be going to see the movie, and I am hoping to take my high school Bible students to it. I told my congregation that I hope they will go see it as well. So the questions I raise are distilled through a long process of considering the issues raised by this movie. (I should also say I have been using “Jesus of Nazareth” with students for a decade, and I also extensively use “Jesus Christ Superstar.” I predict I will be using “The Gospel of John” in the future with classes.)

I am primarily dialoging here with the current evangelical embracing of the film. To me, the film is art, and nothing more. Cinematic art. But to evangelicals, it is much more. It is taking on the contours of a sacrament. An encounter with Christ. A- yes, you guessed it- an anointed work of the Holy Spirit.

My Questions for evangelicals:

1. Can a film that does not establish “Who is Jesus?” properly communicate the significance of his sufferings? This is the entire method of the first Gospel, Mark, and it makes much sense to consider it in refernce to this film’s method.
2. Can the same film devote less than a minute to the resurrection and properly communicate the Gospel? The Gospels, and especially New Testament preaching, major on the resurrection appearances in order to complete the sufferings of Jesus and show us the truth about who Jesus is now, and what God has done through his suffering.
3. Are 15 minutes of flogging paired with less than a minute of resurrection appearances communicating what we believe the Bible communicates? Faithfulness to the scripture is what evangelicals claim commends this movie.
4. Are evangelicals prepared to consider that their own dearth of artistic competence is driving them to endorse this film?
5. In fact, are we as evangelicals ready to consider why it is that no evangelical is making this movie, and in my opinion, could ever make this movie except as a straight to video project financed by TBN and starring Kurt Cameron?
6. Are evangelicals prepared to consider that The Passion is boldly providing a contrast to the Health, Wealth and Prosperity Jesus? The Jesus of good-times and good-feelings promoted everywhere today? The Life Management Jesus of the megas and the seekers?
7. Are we prepared to see that The Passion is showing that Roman Catholicism has not produced a Joel Osteen, but has held on to the stations of the cross, and the sorrowful mysteries?
8. The critics say the sufferings of Christ have been lost to the culture. Isn’t the real question, where are the cross and the sufferings of Jesus in the church? Where is it in American Christianity? As American evangelicals leave the theaters in their BMWs and drive back to the suburbs for pizza and Sex in the City reruns on HBO, will they get the irony?
9. Why are the sufferings of the persecuted church so rarely heard from in evangelicalism? Is anyone preaching that Jesus is suffering now, as his body suffers around the world? Or are American Christians afraid of the suffering church and the judgement it renders on the rest of us?
10. Do we understand the Gospel enough to even explain this movie to our friends? Are saved by Jesus being flogged and crucifed as a man, or are we saved by the sins of the world being laid on the Son of God and expiated by the wrathful judgement of the Father? Do we understand what the book of Hebrews is talking about when it describes the sacrifice of Jesus in the heavenlies? Will The Passion make us feel sorry for Jesus? Or will it make us worship and love God?
11. Are we prepared to challenge the emotional commitments that evangelicals will harvest from this film? Do Southern Baptists and other invitational transactionalists have the spine to not manipulate this movie into a chance to get everyone feeling bad enough to sign up for heaven?
12. Is evangelical preaching about to become the casualty of this film? Will preachers now become commentors upon the 67th book of the Bible, the film clip Gospel?

My Review of The Gospel of John: The Movie

Denise and I just finished watching the new “Gospel of John” movie. I’d like to say a few things about it.

I have two other films that follow the Biblical text as the script. “Acts” is an unmitigated disaster. “Matthew” is ambitious, but odd and unsuccessful. I took a chance on this film with no recommendation and having only seen a few clips. I hoped to use it in my classes. I’m glad I did. John is totally different than the other Visual Bible movies, which suffered from a lack of good direction, money and creativity.

John is wonderful. I can’t recommend this film highly enough. It is well worth the $45 for the tapes or DVDs. It should be supported by Christians who love the Bible and want a film that supports and enhances our reading of the text itself.

Following the text of John in the ABS Today’s English Version as the script is a very tough assignment. John is quite different from the other Gospels. There are long sections of Jesus speaking with little interruption. Much of the text is a mixture of simple terms and deep concepts. There are major chronological contrasts with the Synoptic Gospels. The Gospel is not particularly “viewer” friendly in much of its approach. It takes 3 hours to tell the story, and with the excpetion of the long section of Jesus talking in 13-17, the film moves along at a brisk pace. Even that section seemed remarkable short, as many changing scenes and interactions kept it interesting.

Despite the challenges, this film is a thoroughgoing success. A superb cast plays each part perfectly. With a minimum of dialogue, most of the acting is done in silence, but we come to know the unique relationship between Jesus and the disciples in John. (Interestingly, Mary Magdalene is almost constantly among the disciples.)

Henry Ian Cusick is a marvelously versatile Jesus. John’s Jesus is “out of the closet” as God on earth from the very beginning, and it takes a careful balance of qualities to say “Before Abraham was, I Am,” but also to say “I am the Good Shepherd” with equal believability. Cusick carries out all the demands of the assignment with charm, intensity, humor and clarity. His monologues are memorable and easy to listen to.

The film is meticulously furnished with accurate historical detail. I was extremely impressed with how the film relied on the best scholarship rather than on popular consensus. The crucifixion is done better than any version I’ve seen. Details are gotten right, and this is hard because there are mental images of the crucifixion that are expected. This movie stays with the text and what we know. The crucifixion- and spearing- are carried out with blunt violence, but contrary to the Mel Gibson approach, don’t stop to engage in explorations of gore. The story moves at the same speed as the text, and you never forget that John is in control, not the director.

Christopher Plummer is the voice you hear most, as he narrates with style and feeling. He’s wonderful. The interweaving of narration and dialog is seamless and natural. Great camera work, flashbacks and good acting keep the monologue sections “busy” with enough changes to hold interest but not to distract from what Jesus is saying.

You will love how the movie introduces Jesus in the prologue. You’ll see the wedding at Cana, the feeding of the 5,000, the healing at the pool of Bethesda, the healing of the blind man, the raising of Lazarus, the footwashing of the disciples- it’s all done right, with tremendous awareness of the text and in a way that isn’t cheesy. The movie never skips a beat just because it might be difficult to put the scene on screen, such as the soldiers falling back when Jesus identifies himself in John 18.

The soundtrack is one of the highlights. Actual period instruments are mixed with orchestra to make a number of beautiful thematic tunes. Some of the songs use Aramaic vocals. The soundtrack is available separately.

The movie states up front that it will not be dodging the presentation of Jewish religious leaders who opposed Jesus. In this film, nothing is cut, and we sense throughout the movie the growing hostility and hatred toward Jesus. Pilate’s weakness and vacillation are portrayed as well. This film isn’t “PC” in even one scene. It potrays what the text says.

This isn’t the The Passion. It isn’t the creative scripting of Jesus of Nazereth. It is a unique film, beautiful and well done, and utterly faithful to one of the most powerful pieces of literature in the world. I felt like I was watching the first performance of some great play that had always been read but never acted. I recommend you purchase John, study the Gospel using it, and share it with others. It may get lost in the attention paid to The Passion, but John deserves your support. Without an “R” rating or a lingering focus on violence, it presents the Christ of the fourth Gospel in a way that will enhance your appreciation and love for Jesus and the book that so many have read to come to know him.

The Music Debate at our House: Does it have an influence on what people do?

We have this continuous simmering disagreement in my household over music. I love music, and enjoy all different kinds. My kids are a lot like me, though they like Christian music a lot less (and I don’t like it much) and they haven’t discovered the joys of country yet. But they are very good, intelligent music fans and we’ve never had a row in the house about music. A few questions, but never anything serious.

One of the areas that gets me in trouble is my occasional contention that music contributes to some teenager’s problems. My kids usually kick at this pretty hard, and I am glad they think about it. Now I need to be precise. I am capable of saying that X kind of music is part of the problem, and that sounds like I mean the music is the problem. I don’t mean that. What I should say is that the way person Y uses music X potentially contributes to a problem.

I’m fairly convinced that Americans over-relate to music anyway. We tend to “wall-paper” our worlds with it. Notice, for instance, how we like it playing in the background of everything, and how commericals use it to create a reaction. And while we might complain about that in the elevator or the store, we will practice it in our own environments. Now some of this music is for enjoyment, but some of it functions as a way of creating a supportive message or mood. Music has the ability to affect us emotionally, and one of the ways we use it is to impact our emotions. I don’t mean that we don’t listen and appreciate; I just mean to say that music functions as a soundtrack. A kind of emotional wallpaper, and usually the purpose of that music is to reinforce what we think, feel or want to experience.

So I observe a lot of teenagers who have problems with depression, anger, obsession with sexuality or romance, perennially feeling like an outcast, etc. and there is a musical soundtrack available for all of these things. Many of those kids are wrapped up in those musical soundtracks for their emotional or personal issues/preferences. Music doesn’t create any of these problems, but once someone is there, part of how they will stay there will be music, and their own emotional relationship to the music.

I don’t believe music creates school shooters. I don’t believe it creates young, black criminals. I don’t believe it creates depression. But when behavior and emotions are chosen, music will be used to reinforce the choice. In that kind of symbiotic relationship, it can appear there is a cause and effect relationship. There isn’t. But by the same token, it’s not foolish to notice the potential of some individuals to over-relate to music and to reinforce their choice to be depressed, etc.

I absolutely believe that most healthy, normal people can listen to anything without being affected at all. This includes violent and depressive lyrics. But by the same token, I think persons who are unbalanced, and do not have a healthy, sane, rational grasp on life, whether they be kids or adults, can submerge themselves in music and become angrier, more depressed, etc. I also have to be honest and say that if I believed all content was neutral, I would think advertising was worthless. In fact, I think that when a person is inclined towards a particular behavior, media has a heightened potential to influence them. Hence, the advertising industry. And the bad effects of music on some people.

Smart, healthy, rational kids- like mine- can listen to things and sort them out plainly. They can think about what they hear, and make judgments about the feelings created or reinforced by the music. But for other students, there are real pitfalls in making music a way to close the windows and doors on the real world, and filling your mind with the thoughts- and emotional impacts- that you choose.

You can appreciate and enjoy, or you can self medicate, even mesmerize yourself. Content matters, but not so much that I can’t say the overall influence is neutral for most people. They know it’s a song. For other people, it really is the way to keep thinking- or not thinking- and feeling what you want. And it can be bad news.

We will always fuss about this. But I am very proud of my kids and the way they make judgements about music.

Advice to My Daughter: GOP or Libertarian?

My daughter struggling with whether she is a Republican or a Libertarian. Here’s her post. Here’s my answer.

Dear Noel,

First of all, remember that your political principles are your own. I can influence you, but it is your vote. You are a citizen. It is your privilege and opportunity to exercise that wonderful, blood bought, hard kept right- and you should cast your vote in a way that you believe expresses your principles.

The problem is this: at age 18, you don’t really have many political principles. You have a Christian worldview, but your political philosophy is still developing. That’s normal, and you have written elsewhere that you know you need to work on this. In college, you have the chance to learn and try out various ways of thinking. I want to encourage you to look at the Right, the Left, the Center and the any other political options. If you don’t understand Marx, you won’t understand why we value our constitution. If you don’t understand Third Parties, you won’t see how the two party system works- and doesn’t work.

Libertarians have a lot to offer. I agree with them on many things. I have described myself as a Republican leaning towards libertarianism on many issues. I am for a much reduced war on drugs. I believe personal liberties are important. I am suspicious of state power in any form. I loathe anything done in the public sector that is not specified in the Constitution. I believe the pimary purpose of the Federal government is a common defense and the least workable amount of national government possible.

I am also impressed with Libertarians like John Stossel and Harvey Browne. I could easily be a libertarian. The reasons I am not? Well, let me list a few.

-Libertarians tend to be fringe types. I watched a Libertarian convention once on C-SPAN. It looked and behaved like the Star Trek Convention without the costumes. The personalities on display were a frightening group of eccentrics. I find this to be true in general. Other than a few impressive libertarians, this party seems to be about an intellectual fringe looking to assert individual freedom without serious engagement with the larger questions of the world in which we live.
-Libertarians are great in peacetime, but in a World Wide War on Terror that could end in a Nuclear holocaust, I simply do not trust them. We need a strong government to fight and win this war. Perhaps war is always on the side of bigger government, and that is a tragedy. But in this case, I could not sleep at night if Harvey Browne were President.
-Libertarians don’t put forward electable candidates. They put forward Gatewood Galbraith types and others who are basically about legalizing pot. I am for decriminalizing drugs, but do we have to run apparent drug users as our candidates?
-Libertarians are an adolescent political movement. Their approach to complex problems is, in my opinion, too simplistic. We need less government in a lot of ways. But that doesn’t mean that what government does is meaningless.
-Libertarians have yet to convince me they would really guarantee individual rights, and wouldn’t just neglect such issues as they pursued their personal freedoms. Would Libertarians have taken a strong stand for racial equality like the GOP did in the 50’s and 60’s? I tend to be skeptical.
-I know a lot of smart young Republicans who want to bring Libertarian insights into our party. As one of the two parties in our system, the GOP can win elections and influence culture. A Libertarian vote, at this point, is basically a vote for the Democrats. And I cannot agree with electing liberals who insure BIGGER government and MORE taxes at every turn, just because the GOP isn’t perfect.

If you were turned off by Kerr’s negative campaigning, find a way to express your unhappiness. But I am not sure embracing an entirely different political party should be based on being turned off by a negative ad. Fact is, Kerr is running against the candidate of the party that dominated Ky politics for 40+ years. What our state has become is the legacy of Chandler’s party. he has tried to run AGAINST his own party most of his life! The best reason to be a Republican in Ky is not perpetuating what the Dems have done with their one party system. I can be hacked at Kerr and still vote in good conscience against the Dems. OTOH, a vote for the Libertarian candidate would further increase the chances of more Democratic politics in Ky.

Also I wrote you about the No Child Left Behind plan. It may be bad policy because it is more of a Democrat/Liberal scheme than a GOP approach. As a Republican, I am for vouchers. Get the government out of education and let people choose.

That’s where I am. I hope you will learn all about the Libertarian Party, and make up your own mind. BTW- the BHT’s resident Libertarian, Jack Heald, is a dangerous anarchist. (JN) Beware if he buys you a drink.

No Room for a Pastor in a School Lunchroom

Saw this story about a church I’m very familiar with in the town where I pastored for four years. Seems the local school board has banned ministers from eating lunch with students in the school cafeteria, and the protests are on. Rutherford Institute is on the case, and I just have to wonder what’s going to happen. Little Flock Baptist Church was the big church where all us minor leaguers sent our disgruntled members . The pastor, Ron Shaver, was one of the good guys, best I could tell, and I think it’s great he had a consistent commitment to spend time on campus. The local high schools are pretty rough, and I can imagine there were a lot of helpful conversations. I am also sure Shaver wouldn’t have ever abused the privilege. Of course, just being there said about all that needed to be said. The young people would really appreciate it.

But the law is not on his side. The schools are perfectly within their rights to say purely religious visitation is not appropriate. What puzzles me is why now? The article says there are complaints from teachers, but what are the complaints based on? As one of the BHT fellows said, the public schools now do everything to avoid lawsuits, and this smells like that kind of situation. Some teacher is being the heavy, and the school is playing the game.

If there were some sort of terrible accident or tragedy, the school would probably issue a call for local clergy to come to the school and counsel. That was common during the “school shootings” era in the late 90’s. Schools have plenty of trauma going on all the time among students, aAs any nurse can tell you, some are an asset and some are a pain. Perhaps the complaints from teachers have merit, but I tend to think it is probably just putting the screws to Christian ministers in a time when that’s becoming easier and easier.

At some point we are going to approach a critical juncture on the issue of religion in the public square. The kind of total separation some imagine may be possible in the big coastal cities, but out here in the heartland, where school personnel and church folks are all part of the same community and ususally the same churches, these sorts of problems can be worked out in a more reasonable way.

I’m trained to volunteer in the Federal prison in our county. I had to go for a day of training, and I know a lot of things that I shouldn’t do. The training was helpful. The same goes for a lot of ministers in hospitals. Couldn’t ministers do something similar, and then agree to behave themselves? Frankly, schools lose credibility when they do this sort of thing in a small town. Everybody knows everybody, and it gets personal. I’d prefer to see some give and take, some listen and learn, and then some compromise where the interests of the school are protected, and the freedom of religion can go at least as far as a cafeteria.

What’s pathetic about this interview with Mel Gibson aren’t his answers- which are simple, not particularly eloquent, and nothing we haven’t heard before- but the brutally stupid questions Dianne Sawyer was asking. I almost typed “Have they no shame?” but that is a laugh line.

Al Mohler nailed all this in his killer review of the Newsweek cover story on “Who Killed Jesus?” What is up is this: The New Testament can’t be correct because if it is, it might incite anti-Semitism. You know, there aren’t many bigger supporters of Jews and Israel than me, but when you can’t even have a discussion of the most well known text in the Western world without saying “Oh– we can’t offend the Jews!” it’s gotten bad. How many Jews are offended? Apparently only the ones who run the Jesse Jackson-type organizations that have to stay offended to keep the contributions rolling in. Something tells me that the average Jew could read the Gospel of Mark or even John and say, “Yeah…sounds like some people I know.” I mean, if I can say that as a Christian about the religious leaders I know, how far off could they be from seeing the same point? (Yes— I just said that Christians could not be trusted if Jesus showed up in a country they were running. So what?)

And then I’m confused about whether liberals are for the Jews or against the Jews? Can someone give me a helpful chart to navigate this? One minute it’s burning synagogues in Europe and the next it’s “Oh No. Gibson said some OTHER people died in WWII besides Jews! Ack! He’s an anti-Semite!”

The Second Commandment, The Passion, and Evangelical Endorsements

“I Think I Need A Stiff Drink” links to this PCA Pastor’s vigorous defense of a strict view of the second commandment. If you want to read a detailed legalistic defense of no images of Jesus in art of any kind, this is your ticket.

Part of what is irritating this guy are a couple of not-real-bright comments by some leading evangelicals. Here are some samples:

Apart from the Jewish and Roman Catholic communities, Evangelicals have weighed in on The Passion as well. Greg Laurie of Harvest Crusades said regarding the movie, “I believe The Passion of the Christ may well be one of the most powerful evangelistic tools of the last 100 years, because you have never seen the story of Jesus portrayed this vividly before.” Coming from a man of Laurie’s stature, that is quite an endorsement. But he isn’t the only Evangelical “heavyweight” to comment on Gibson’s movie. James Dobson calls it “a film that must be seen.”

Former atheist–weren’t we all at one time?–and author, Lee Strobel says, “The Passion will stun audiences and create an incredible appetite for people to know more about Jesus. I urge Christians to invite their spiritually seeking friends to see this movie with them…” (Unlike Lee Strobel, I don’t know any true “seekers” since Romans 3:10-11 is clear that, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God.” It’s texts like this that keep me from adopting Lee Strobel’s language.)

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Community Church, states that the film is “brilliant, biblical, a masterpiece.” No one less than Billy Graham is on record for saying, “Every time I preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and mind.”

I’ll leave it to someone else to refute this fellow on the second commandment. I think he’s OK when it comes to public or private worship, but he’s Calvin-happy on making this apply to all artistic endeavors. Certainly, imagery expresses our human sinfulness, but it also expresses our God-createdness. There is nothing said in this line of reasoning that couldn’t be applied to words as well. So we really shouldn’t write anything about God or Jesus. What we have in scripture is sufficient. Where do we stop this line of reasoning? Are my own thoughts about God sinful? Can I even pray without “imagining” God sinfully?

Of course, there is no commandment to forbid literature or thoughts, but the logic is the same. So much is built on generalizing out from the second commandment to all art, that it becomes bizarre if you attempt to be as strict as this pastor intends. It would be the death of all religious art, literature, music with non-Biblical words, etc. His view is that scripture’s sufficiency is applied in the second commandment by forbidding all visual art. That’s unnecessary and inconsistent, even with scripture itself.

But that’s just me. I respect the Puritan roots of this approach, but I believe it errs on the side of sinful human nature rather than on the side of God’s created purpose and our image-of-God generated desire to create art that glorifies God. Does our pastor friend believe that Aslan can be shown on the big screen, or is that breaking the Second Commandment? Be careful!

On the subject of these endorsements, however, I agree with him considerably. I’m concerned that the endorsements seem unaware of the film’s flaws. I can already see, just through research, that the film follows tradition and artistic license rather than scripture at a number of places. When I talk to my people about this, I will tell them that scripture is more accurate, and more substantial than any movie.

The endorsements given to the film seem to me to be part of the usual and predictable evangelical marketing game. Get the “brand names” to endorse it. Claim a divine anointing. Market it, sell related products, etc. It’s time evangelical leaders asked where the money is going to go? Gibson will get his money back and then some. Where will the money from the millions of DVD’s go? When someone buys a “Passion” backpack or candy bar, where is the money going to go? I don’t have a problem with Gibson getting rich, but I have some problems if, let’s say, extremist RCs get rich off of it. How does evangelical support of this movie translate into the influence of those dollars?

And I do agree that the notion a movie will present the Gospel in a way CERTAIN to be more Holy Spirit honored than the scripture preached is very shaky ground. We are talking about a visual generation. A special effect oriented audience, and the Passion is going to play to them. I think it will be great art and good film making, but it won’t have any more power to save than the Gospel as printed in a Gideon New Testament.

We have a lot of preachers at my chapel who want to use film clips. I’ve said, up to this point, no film clips unless the clip is from the Bible or presents the Bible. Do I want to keep that policy in place for the 50 preachers next year who will want to show parts of The Passion in their sermons? The visuals in this movie will be gripping. Can we just show it and have an invitation? What will he have if we do?

I am concerned that The Passion, while honoring scripture, may also signal a use of the film medium in a way that may have lasting corrosive effects on evangelicals. The normal Christian life isn’t fueled by film clips. It’s fueled by the passion created by the Holy Spirit, and that passion is fed by Holy Scripture.

I do disagree, however, with the author’s snide attitude towards seekers. I think the film will create a lot of interest, and I hope and pray we can answer that interest with good communication of the Gospel message- and not just the story of Jesus’ sufferings. It may create more discussion possibilities, and more openness to talking about Jesus, than anything in recent popular culture. The article’s arrogant announcement that there are no real seekers underestimates what a sovereign God can and will do with the film. (Jesus Christ Superstar created real curiosity! Surely this will create much more curiosity than that mess of a script!) I hope our churches are full. Because we should be in the position to actually talk about something the world cares about for a change! And only the Holy Spirit can make that window of opportunity count.

Is the gore necessary?

Martin Marty- one liberal who has my utmost respect- comments on violence in The Passion, and I must say that I agree with every word. Really, this is perfect.

The previewers who like violence if it shows Jesus suffering, on the grounds that savagery moves people to appreciate his sacrifice, are measuring the wrong thing. In Holy Week I’ll be listening to Bach’s Passions, singing about “was there ever grief like Thine?” and meditating on the wounds of Christ, but not in the belief that the more blood and gore the holier, a la Gibson.

The humanistic and theological point: pain is pain, suffering is suffering, torture is torture, and horrible pain-suffering-torture is horrible, and I don’t think there are grades and degrees of these. Today, all over the world, people are suffering physically as much as the crucified Jesus. The point now is not to accept grace because we saw gore. The issue is not, were his the worst wounds and pains ever, but, as the gospels show, the issue was, and is, who was suffering and to what end. Christians believe that Jesus was and is the Christ, the Anointed, and they are to find meaning in his sacrificial love and death, not to crawl in close to be sure they get the best sight of the worst physical suffering.

For years, I’ve noticed that people have an advanced appetite for visual gore, and the entertainment media has kept increasing the gore we view. Look at one of my favorite shows, CSI. Every week there is some really shocking, explicit, disgusting stuff; things that would have been unheard of a few years ago. It’s a trend towards explicitness that has overtones. We don’t need to see more. We are just dulled, and we want to see more to be, as Marty says, “moved.”

But can gore move us to accept grace? Interesting question.

Now The Passion is taking this road, and I am wondering if the Roman Catholic aspect of all this has registered with evangelicals yet? The sufferings of Christ play a role in the piety and art of RCs that most Protestants can’t appreciate. The gore is an object of meditation in RC piety. Not just the person, but the suffering at the stations of the cross. This doesn’t really impact the way we view the film, but we need to say that the suffering of Jesus- no matter what it was- is suffering for us and for our sins. We also need to say that it is not the physical suffering of Christ that atones, but the offering of his life and person in our place, taking the wrath of God on our behalf. 2Corinthians 5:21. Saying, “My sins deserve a beating and a crucifixion” is not really the Gospel. Let’s try “…he descended into hell.”

Christianity Today Film Forum has many links discussing the accuracy of the movie, and I can already see a number of Biblical errors and omissions, but that is understandable. It’s art. Even any one of the Gospels, taken alone, is less than the whole story.

Samuel Blackburn on Lust

Al Mohler reviews Samuel Blackburn on that most interesting of topics, Lust.

Blackburn’s purpose is to overcome all pessimism towards lust. He even defends the use of pornography, which can, he argues, point towards the higher purposes of sex, rather than the lower degradations. He takes on the evolutionary psychologists, arguing that their naturalistic view of sex is too mechanistic. But his main effort is to overcome what he sees as Christianity’s pessimism towards sexual desire as an end in itself. In effect, Blackburn’s effort is to deny that lust should be considered a sin at all, deadly or otherwise.

It’s good to see some interaction between a prominent Christian thinker and a serious non-Christian philosopher. Rather than railing about the Janet Jackson matter, (which Mohler does take on elsewhere) Mohler reminds us that popular culture and serious philosophy are not that far apart, even if the primary players in each couldn’t have much of a conversation.

Blackburn believes that both philosophy and religion have taken sexual desire far too seriously and gone to extremes in associating it with evil. I thoroughly agree. Thoroughly.

Tracing the idea of lust through Western thought, Blackburn rejects the common association of lust with excess. Lust is not really about excessive desire, argues Blackburn, but rather a desire for sexual pleasure as an end in itself.

He condemns the Stoics for saying that anything done for pleasure is wrong and asserting that all of life should be ruled by reason, leaving no place for passion. He condemns the Church for its pessimism, particularly Augustine.

Augustine, whose youth had been given to sexual excess, was, after his conversion, determined to deny that sexual pleasure was a part of the Creator’s design for human sexuality, even from the beginning. Had the Fall not occurred, Augustine argued, sex would be a purely rational affair, untainted by any physical pleasure. Copulation would be, in effect, just like shaking hands.

I believe we need to consider if the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, teaches the view of sexuality that we hear from most of modern evangelicalism? Has the “fanatical” streak in Christianity really portrayed sexuality accurately? Have we given ourselves more sexual hangups and neurosis than we already had, because now we fear any and all sexuality?

My counseling experience tells me that Christians have simply taken sex down into the basement, where it wreaks havoc on individuals and relationships. I agree with Mohler that seeing sex as a gift and design of the creator is important, and wonderful. But I meet few Chrisitans who see sexuality of any kind as anything other than the work of the devil, in total and without exception.

Is it possible Mr. Blackburn is on the right track, and if met with some grateful Christian optimism and thanksgiving that God made us sexual, he might have something practical to say?

A thought from my study of Mark 15 today. I doubt if it is totally original, but I can’t recall coming across it before.

I’m interested in the flogging of Jesus by Pilate.

Mark 15:15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Of course, John and Luke make it clearer than Mark that this was done by Pilate with the intention of stopping the plan to crucify Jesus, something Pilate is no doubt afraid will lead to a riot and to personal trouble with Rome. The other Gospels repeat and expand this, and it is at the center of Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” But just what kind of beating are we dealing with here?

Most evangelical preachers have told this story with the impression that Jesus was flogged with a “Cat ‘O Nine Tails” whip that included bone and metal ends on several strands of leather. Such a whip would, according to the story tellers, remove most of the skin it lashed. This may have been popularized among Christians because of the Shroud of Turin, as the wounds on that “body” or image are supposed to bear evidence of that particular kind of whip. This has produced more than one gory “hamburger Jesus” sermon, and the idea that Jesus was whipped until most of the flesh was removed from his body and was flailed until he is hardly recognizable as a man.

It’s quite effective, but I have a question. Aside from the fact that we don’t really know what kind of whip was used and even how many lashes were actually given, how do we fit in this verse?

2 Cor 11:24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one.

This is the Apostle Paul, and I have to wonder, if he is talking about a similar kind of lashing, how could it possibly be the kind of lashing that will be portrayed in Gibson’s movie? No one could reasonably survive that once, much less five times. Since Paul does say it is at the hands of the Jews, we might say it is a different, less brutal beating, but he is clear that it is 39 lashes. From all the evidence we have, the beatings are probably similar.

This makes it much more reasonable to me to assume that Jesus was whipped with a more traditional whip and, while obviously brutal and painful, it did not produce all the damage that we hear about in the popular stories or in the movie. Interestingly, the Shroud of Turin does not show evidence of the kind of extensive damage by scourging Gibson will portray, but of something more in line with what I am suggesting. Terrible, but survivable. (I don’t believe the shroud is genuine, btw, but I do believe a real body was flogged to create it.)

Jim Carroll, of the Boston Globe, raises the question of whether Christians place too much emphasis on the crucifixion and death of Jesus, and whether this is a distortion of Jesus himself.

All of this is to say that death was not the purpose of Jesus’ life but only one part of a story that stretches from incarnation at Bethlehem to life as a Jew in Nazareth to preaching in Galilee to a courageous challenge to Roman imperialism in Jerusalem to permanent faith in the God of Israel whose promise is fulfilled in resurrection. In this full context, the death of Jesus can be seen as a full signal of his humanity — and more.

In being crucified, Jesus was not uniquely singled out for the most extreme suffering ever inflicted but was joined to thousands of his fellow Jews who said no to Rome — and who suffered similarly for it.

One of the things I suspect I won’t like about “The Passion” will be an over-emphasis on physical suffering, especially the “gory” details. The “hamburger Christ” as I’ve heard some revivalistic preachers describe him. I agree with Carroll that the Resurrection is the stronger note. (See Romans 1:1-4, or Hebrews 1:1-5 for example.) I don’t see the New Testament zeroing in on the details of the autopsy. Crucifixion was widely known and understood in the first century, and you didn’t have to describe the wounds or the blood loss.

Jesus is the redeemer in all of his person and all of his life. The early church saw that clearer than we do today. Everything about Christ “bridges the gap,” so to speak, between God and man.

But Carroll does miss the fundamental stress on the cross in the Christian message. The NT writers talk about the cross as the center of the work of redemption. Not the incarnation or the resurrection, but the cross itself. It is the message of the cross that is the power of God unto salvation. It is the cross where John’s Gospel locates the glory of God revealed in Jesus. It is the cross that Jesus wants his disciples to see in order to understand what kind of messiah he is….”….who gives his life as a ransom for many.”

There are modern theories of the development of Christianity- like J.D. Crossan- that say the “Q” document and the evidence of non-canonical Gospels indicate there was a period where the “wisdom” of Jesus, and not the cross was the focus of Christianity. One can construct such theories, but they fall apart on one hard issue: the forgiveness of sins. The cross is about the forgiveness of sins, and the message is about the forgiveness of God for sinners. If Mark makes anything clear, it is that everything Jesus taught and did in his early ministry was setting the stage for his death to bring forgiveness. And when the Gospel is preached by the Apostles, the bottom line is that forgiveness of sins is offered in Jesus. And that doesn’t come by way of wisdom, incarnation or even resurrection. It comes when the righteous dies for the unrighteous.

There is simply no way to be a competent parent to a 19 year old child on the subject of dating. First, I’m an idiot anyway. Second, I’ve been married for 26 years. Third, dating is inherently confusing, and anyone who thinks it should make sense should be sent to common sense camp anyway.

A few days ago I received an invitation from Ken Hamm’s “Answers in Genesis” ministry, inviting me to have breakfast with Hamm who is preparing to come to Corbin for some kind of a seminar. I politely declined the breakfast, and said I hoped and prayed for a successful presentation of the Gospel. I got back a terse letter back saying what a shame it was that I wasn’t coming as an “interested observer.” I can’t imagine what I would be interested in observing.

I sense the hand of certain OBI employed, young earth creationists at work. These guys are good men, but they won’t give up on trying to get me into their camp where I can really believe the Bible instead of being a modernistic doubter who accepts an old earth. I can handle it, and I appreciate their sincerity, but let’s be plain: I don’t bug people with what I believe. I don’t invite my pals to Calvinistic conferences. I don’t arrange to have them sent materials they didn’t ask for. This goes to show that the YEers really do believe this is all a very crucial matter. If you don’t accept their view of Genesis, you really don’t believe the Bible. A shame. A real shame.