|
The substance of a sermon preached
by Rev Brian McClung
Minister of Newtownabbey Free Presbyterian Church,
on Lord’s Day evening, March 21st 2004.
Much media attention has been concentrated
upon the film, directed by Mel Gibson, entitled: ‘The Passion of the Christ’.
This film purports to focus on the last twelve hours of the life of the
Lord Jesus Christ. The film begins in the Garden of Gethsemane where the
Lord Jesus had gone to pray after instituting the Last Supper. In the garden,
He must resist the temptations of Satan and be betrayed by Judas Iscariot.
He is then arrested and taken within the city walls of Jerusalem where the
leaders of the Pharisees confront Him with accusations of blasphemy and His
trial results in a condemnation to death. Media comment has particularly
been directed towards two matters:
[1] the violent nature of this film. There are supposed
to be scenes of the most grotesque violence, prolonged scenes of the scourging
of Christ and also of the subsequent crucifixion;
[2] the anti-Semitism which might be stirred up as a
result of depicting the Jews in a particular way.
In America, and it is reasonable to conclude the same
will happen in Great Britain also, multitudes have flocked to view this
film. We are not surprised that Roman Catholics are desirous to see it.
Rome has since the Dark Ages believed in ‘passion plays’. What is more surprising
is that professing evangelicals are praising this film and even using it
as an outreach tool. Whole congregations of professing evangelicals have
block-booked ticket allocations so that they can watch it together. The film
cost $30 million to produce. It has already recouped its costs during the
first few weeks since release. It was released in America on Ash Wednesday,
a day of significance for Roman Catholics and increasingly for apostate Protestantism.
We want to consider whether the production of this film is a good thing
or something to be opposed. Let us first deal with the retort that you cannot
criticise something before you have personally seen it. We can answer that
objection by simply applying the same maxim to poison. You do not have
to drink poison to know the effects it will produce in the body. You just
need to read the label. We will do the same with this film. We will read
what those who have produced this film have said about it. There are five
major issues surrounding this subject:
[1] Is it right for Christians to attend cinemas and
theatres?
[2] Is it Scriptural to make a physical portrayal of
the Son of God?
[3] Are the contents of the film in keeping with the
Word of God?
[4] Is the physical representation of Christ’s sufferings
an appropriate means of evangelism?
[5] Who did ultimately crucify Christ?
1. Is it right for Christians
to attend cinemas and theatres?
This is a general point but still
very important. It has been the historic position of Biblical Christianity
to oppose the attendance of Christians at cinemas and theatres, whatever
film is being shown.
Attendance at cinemas and theatres is manifesting a love
for pleasure and entertainment. The Christian is to seek joy entirely in
the Lord and not in the things of the world. We are warned against being
“lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God,” 2 Timothy 3 v 4.
Believers are not to set wicked things before their eyes.
The cinema and theatre do not promote morality or virtue. They promote ungodliness
and immorality. “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the
work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me,” Psalm 101:3. “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,” Philippians 4:8.
The ungodly lives of actors and actresses are
an indication of the spirit of these places. It has long been known that
those who give their lives to acting are generally among the most ungodly
of individuals. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one,”
Job 14:4. The Christian ought to avoid all appearances of evil. Cinemas and
theatres are places of worldly entertainment and amusement and therefore
not appropriate places to be frequented by a Christian.
2. Is it scriptural to make
a physical portayal of the Son of God?
I do not believe that it is Scriptural in any way.
The whole concept of depicting Christ's life in film
is questionable. This point applies to all films of this nature and not only
this latest effort. The question needs to be asked: Who would put himself
forward as worthy to play the leading part i.e. that of the Incarnate Son
of God? These films are not mere depictions of a great man, but of Him
to Whom one day “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that He
is Lord,” Philippians 2:10-11. It cannot be right that an actor, who can
in other films play an immoral character, should be given the role of playing
Him who knew no sin. Who could claim to enter into the part of playing the
Son of God? No one is capable of doing so. Anything less is an inaccurate
presentation of Christ. The uniqueness of Christ's person and ministry
is sacrificed in this film.
The use of any visual aid to depict Christ violates the
second commandment. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth,” Exodus 20:4.
It is worth noting that although art had been established
long before Christ appeared in Israel over 2,000 years ago, God did not
inspire any artist to give us a visible representation of Him. No sketches
or pictures survive to tell us what the Lord Jesus looked like. The danger
now is that when people think of Christ, they will associate the Son of
God with the face of the actor who took upon himself to play Him. This is
practical idolatry. God gave us the Scriptures as the sole revelation of
Jesus Christ. The Scriptures nowhere emphasise Christ’s physical appearance.
3. Are the contents of this film
in keeping with the Word of God?
I do not believe that this film is in keeping with the
Word of God.
This passion film is based on the Bible and also on the
visions of two Roman Catholic mystics. Mel Gibson is a traditional Roman
Catholic, belonging to a group which wants to overturn the reforms of the
Second Vatican Council and return to old-fashioned Romanism, before she
put on her ecumenical mask. He has produced this film about the death of
Christ based on the visions of two Catholic mystics. The first is Anne Catherine
Emmerich, who claimed to have seen visions of the passion, death and resurrection
of Christ which were recorded in her book, ‘The Dolorous Passion of Our
Lord Jesus Christ.’ She narrated in incredible detail her understanding
of the horrendous sufferings which He underwent in His death. The second
is Mary of Agreda from Spain, who wrote a book entitled ‘The divine history
and life of the Virgin Mother of God as manifested to Mary of Agreda.’ Needless
to say ‘the stations of the cross’ form the basis. A number of these stations
are nowhere found in the Word of God. Christ falling three times on His
way to Calvary, the meeting with His mother and His meeting with Veronica
who wipes His face on her veil, who in turn discovers the image of His face
on her veil - His gift to her, are nowhere found in the Bible. By intertwining
truth and falsehood into one account, we have an adding to the Word of God,
a practice forbidden in the Bible. “Add thou not unto his words, lest he
reprove thee, and thou be found a liar,” Proverbs 30:6.
This film gives an inordinate place to the Virgin
Mary in the last twelve hours of Christ’s life. A minister, present at
a preview of this film, reported that the film should be renamed as the
Passion of Christ and Mary. Without doubt, Mary suffered greatly as she
watched her son die on the Cross. What mother wouldn't? However, despite
the persistent claims of the Roman Catholic Church, Mary's sufferings were
not atoning in value. Claims that she is a Co-Redemptorist in the work of
salvation are totally opposed to the teaching of the Bible. Speaking of Christ,
Peter said: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other
name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,” Acts 4:12.
Unlike the film where Mary features prominently, the true, unadulterated
account of Christ's passion mentions Mary only once, John 19:25-26. Some
interpret the constant looking of Christ to His mother in this film as Him
drawing strength from her presence. This is Roman Catholic fiction and without
any Biblical authority. Christ did not need to draw strength from His mother
or anyone else. His deity was all sufficient to strengthen His humanity to
fulfil the work of the cross.
4. Is the physical representation
of Christ's sufferings an appropriate means of evangelism?
Though many believe that it is, the physical representation
of Christ’s sufferings is not an appropriate means of evangelism and will
never prove to be of an efficacy to bring souls to Christ.
An attack upon the sufficiency of the Bible. To promote
another means of evangelism ahead of the Scriptures cannot have the blessing
of God. It is the preaching of His Word God blesses and not ‘passion plays’.
Those who wish to learn more about the sufferings of Christ ought to search
the various accounts as they appear in the Bible, Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 or
the Gospels. The truth is learned from the Bible. Who can argue that the
film experts of Hollywood with all their expertise in camera work and music
etc., can outdo the effect of the Spirit of God working upon the heart?
‘Passion plays’ versus preaching. Medieval Europe was
a hotbed of passion plays where fact mingled with fiction was presented
as gospel truth. This period of time has now been rightly described as the
Dark Ages. The Reformation marked a return to solid, sound Bible preaching.
The latter alone has the approval of God upon it as a method of communication.
“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,”
1 Corinthians 1:21. Gibson’s film is just a high-tech, state of the art
passion play. It is just another Roman ‘passion play’ which has moved out
of a Church building into a local cinema. It is amazing that some evangelical
churches have block-booked cinemas to endorse not only the message of this
film, but its method of communication.
His physical sufferings made no impression upon many
who stood around the cross. Is this not testimony to their inefficacy as
a means of witnessing? Grace alone saves the soul. Films of any sort are
not means of grace. The enormity of His sufferings involved more than the
physical pain. Others were crucified as well. What made Christ’s sufferings
so unique was that His soul was becoming an offering for sin, “Yet it pleased
the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his
soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days,
and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand,” Isaiah 53:10. His
soul was exceeding sorrowful unto death. No physical representation of these
sufferings can ever be made. The communion feast is not a meditation upon
His physical sufferings alone.
5. Who ultimately crucified
Christ?
To say that Christ was crucified because Judas betrayed
him to the Jewish authorities, who in turn delivered Him up to the ruling
Gentiles, who in turn nailed His hands and feet to a Roman cross is true,
but falls woefully short of the whole answer.
Humanly speaking both Jew and Gentile were guilty. “For
of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both
Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel,
were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined
before to be done,” Acts 4:27-28.
The charges of anti-Semitism may well have some foundation
in the light of comments made both by Mel Gibson and his father who said
that the Holocaust was exaggerated, just prior to the release of the film
in the USA.
Ultimately it was God Himself Who crucified His own Son.
The Bible tells us: “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up
for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” Romans
8:32. This does not in any way lessen the accountability of those who were
humanly responsible for His death. The real reason why Christ was crucified?
God crucified His Son to accomplish redemption once for all — something this
film will never convey because neither Rome nor Mel Gibson believes in the
finished work of Christ. Calvary is God's way of enabling the guilty sinner
to go free while still maintaining every last jot and tittle of His holiness.
Calvary enables God to be just and the justifier of him who believes in
Jesus, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened
by the Spirit,” 1 Peter 3:18. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness:
that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,”
Romans 3:26. Calvary completely put away sin. Its benefits are received
by faith alone in Christ alone. This is the true message of the cross and
one which this film in no way portrays.
It is sad that evangelicals are deceived into thinking
that some good will come from this film. When it contravenes the Scriptures
in so many ways, how can it ever have the blessing of God?
|
