It is not often that yours truly sneaks away in the middle of the day from the excitement of Free Church committee in order to frequent a cinematic establishment – especially when the film one is going to see is an 18 with a reputation for excessive violence. Not often, but it did happen. Though it was with some degree of trepidation that, having been invited to attend a church leaders screening of the Passion in Edinburgh earlier this month, I entered the UGC cinema. Trepidation because I have little interest in Christ being portrayed by an actor and also because the film is so violent that it has an 18 certificate. That fear was well founded. It was not a pleasant experience. The film is horrific. There is no possibility of being able to sit through it munching popcorn and drinking coke. After watching it I was shattered. Worse I had to go back to Church committees and I had a migraine! However since then I have taken some time to think about the film and have read a great deal both for and against. Let us look at some of these objections and some of the claims made for the film.

The secular press have largely concentrated on the objection that the film is anti-Semitic. One newspaper even went so far as to call it ‘the most hate filled film ever’! This is utter nonsense. The film is not anti-Semitic. It is largely faithful to the Bible and gives an accurate account and portrayal of the reaction of the Jewish leadership and mob to Jesus Christ. Having said that, it seems to me that the film could be used by those who are anti-Jewish – in much the same way as medieval biblical passion plays were. That will only happen to people who are ignorant and ill-informed. However that is a considerable number of people. Nonetheless does that mean it should be banned? Is ignorance of the viewers any reason for banning a film? There is also an irony in the fact that claiming it to be anti-Semitic means that the film is more likely to be used by anti-Semites as justification for their racism. Furthermore the largest complaints have come from the liberal elite in New York and Hollywood - very often the same people who were happy to endorse The Last Temptation of Christ and whose anti-Christian stances borders on sectarian intolerance. No, the claims of anti-Semitism are as ignorant and prejudged as anti-Semitism itself.

Another negative is the whole question of the second commandment. There are those who would argue that it is de facto blasphemous for anyone to portray the Son of God. I have a great deal of sympathy with that argument and I still think it is very significant that we have no physical description of Christ within the New Testament. However the argument proves too much. Firstly the second commandment says nothing about pictures of Christ. It forbids us making images to worship. If a picture of Christ was used for that purpose then it would be wrong. But does that mean that all symbols and images are banned? If that is the case then virtually every Presbyterian church I know in Scotland is guilty of idolatry. Most of us have the symbol of the burning bush somewhere in our churches - I know that we say it speaks of the church not being consumed in the midst of persecution – but it was God who was in the bush – the God who revealed himself as Yahweh – the I AM. The burning bush was holy ground. Churches which have it as a symbol can hardly claim that they allow no symbols/images or pictorial representations of God. ]

Meanwhile some would object that it is a terrible thing for an actor to attempt to portray Christ. Again, whilst I would have some sympathy with that viewpoint, it also proves too much. When we read the words of Jesus in the Gospels do we read them deadpan, without expression or feeling? No, we do not. We read them as we imagine Christ might have said them, with the emphasis, tone and feeling that Christ may have had (even though the Bible does not always tell us what the mood or tone was). Why then is it right for us to ‘act’ the words of Christ in speaking them, but sinful for anyone to act the actions of Christ? I accept that there is a real danger in having an actor portray Christ – not least because it may leave the ignorant with the illusion that we know what Jesus looked like. However as long as it is not an image used for worship it is not breaking the second commandment. Besides which the mental imagery left in my mind by The Passion is not that of an angelic looking almost unreal Christ but rather of a broken, bloody and beaten body. It is the very opposite of the sanitised Jesus of much religious art.

Others have criticised the violence, claiming that the film is a ‘typical Mel Gibson blood fest’. It is touching to see Hollywood suddenly getting an attack of conscience about violence on the screen – touching but unconvincing. Nevertheless the violence is graphic and disturbing. The film is an 18. That is because it is the most violent film I have ever seen. Shockingly so. The scene where Jesus is flogged is excruciating and I could not watch it all. The bloody walk to the cross is too long and would have benefited by being cut at this point by ten minutes. However as I watched, the words of Scripture really struck home – “Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness” (Isaiah ch. 52 v.14). Crucifixion was violent, bloody, gruesome, disgusting and ugly. Gibson told the Readers Digest: “From many accounts I’ve read, I think it was actually more violent that what you’re going to see in this film. According to the psalmists, you couldn’t even recognise him as being human. That’s how bad it was.” A film which allowed you to look in comfort at a sanitised Jesus on the cross would not be true to what happened. If this film does nothing else it takes away the religious sanitised notion of the cross. I cannot understand why people want to wear crucifixes as items of religious jewellery – to me that is as absurd as carrying a picture of Belsen round your neck. The Cross is ugly. A Christian should hardly be able to look at it.

The above are the most serious objections. However there are others – some of which have come from the ‘Reformed’ camp and which really make me ashamed. The worst of these is the accusation that Mel Gibson is a catholic and therefore the film cannot be right. An example of this kind of argument is the statement released by the Reformed Witness Committee of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Ireland. I know many good people in that church and I can hardly believe that the language used in this statement is representative of that Church. It declares that ‘much of its content comes from a book called ‘The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ’ by an 18th century German nun, Anne Emmerich,’. This was obviously written by someone who had not seen the film. The vast majority of the Passion is straight out of Scripture. Yes there are some extras, but to be fair, they are largely peripheral and on the whole do not detract from the clear biblical content. Gibson told Christianity Today: “Wow, the Scriptures are the Scriptures – I mean they’re unchangeable, although many people try to change them. And I think that my first duty is to be as faithful as possible in telling the story so that it doesn’t contradict Scripture”. The RP statement then goes on to declare that the message of the film is that of ‘Roman Catholicism, not Biblical Christianity’ and attacks ‘Mel Gibson’s non-existant pseudo-christ’ as contrasted with ‘the Christ who really saves, the Christ of the Scriptures’. I find such language ill informed and deeply offensive. If it is accurate then I am a Roman Catholic and I believe in the same Christ as Mel Gibson. The Christ who is both God and man, the Christ who was crucified for our sin, the Christ who battled the devil, who rose from the dead and who ascended to heaven. It is one thing to disagree with someone portraying Jesus Christ, quite another to make such statements – statements which come very close to blasphemy. In theological terms the author should know that Roman Catholic christology is not the problem – the RC’s are as sound on that as any Ulster Presbyterian! It is on the whole question of soteriology that RC theology is unbiblical. ‘Needy sinners’ as the RP church points out need the Christ who really saves. They do not need ill informed criticism which comes across as little more than sectarian prejudice. Many people, many of my non- Christian friends, will go to see this film – a film which tells them about the Christ who really saves. With all its faults I am still thankful for that. Certainly let us correct the false impressions, the misunderstandings and let us tell people why Jesus died (as the film does – it opens with Isaiah 53 – he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities).

Enough of the attacks on the film. What about the claims that are being made in favour of it? Some of these are quite extraordinary – most notably by Rick Warren the pastor of one of Americas mega churches who called it the greatest evangelistic opportunity in 2,000 years. Even for hyperbole this is absurdly myopic. I suspect that the film will have an enormous impact – at least at a superficial cultural level. But whether it will last is another matter. Furthermore the notion that all people will have to do is see this film and they will be queuing up to get into our churches or to become Christians is fanciful. In fact the film may have the opposite effect. As it is an accurate portrayal of the Cross we can expect the same reaction that the actual Cross did. It was offensive, disgusting and an object of ridicule.

Furthermore I have a real problem with seeing the film as ‘an evangelistic opportunity’. If that means simply an opportunity to tell people about Jesus then Hallelujah! My fear is that what is being said here is that this film will be a good advertising gimmick to get people to think as we do or into our churches. Saddleback church proudly announced that 892 friends of members were ‘saved’ and that the average attendance at the church increased by 3,000. I am sorry but I find the numbers game anathema to the Good News. We are not selling a product. We are not trying to build up our own wee (or big) groups. I would feel a sense of disgust at using the Cross of Christ as an advertising gimmick or even as a persuasion technique. It is too precious, too holy, too incredible to be reduced to that level. But is the Gospel not the Cross? Well, yes and no. The Gospel is Jesus Christ, his birth, life, work, death, resurrection and ascension. Of course the Cross is central – and we do preach Christ crucified but, and I admit I am not explaining this very well, we must not exploit, formularise or turn it into a technique. We preach Jesus Christ, and him crucified. It is a mystery and a wonder. We need to be careful not to cast our pearls before swine. In this respect I must pay tribute to the organisers of the special preview I attended. Peter Kerridge of Premier Christian Radio was excellent in his straightforward and measured introduction of the film.

In terms of evangelism I have a lot more sympathy with Brian McLaren, pastor of Cedar Community Church in Washington, who told Christianity Today: “Our world is torn by ethnic, class and religious hatred. Don’t show the emerging culture a movie about Jesus: show them a movement of people living like Jesus – people who like him love the different, even the enemy, whose doors are open and tables are set with welcome.” Of course it is not a case of ‘either/or’ but ‘both/and’. All men will know that we are Christ’s disciples because of the love we have for one another – but when they want to know why we have that love we need to point them to the Cross.

What about the film itself? You will understand that this is very much a personal reaction. Others may react and think differently. It is a well made film which is generally faithful to the biblical text. I was a bit surprised at one or two things. My impression from the film was that the crowd watching the crucifixion was small. I had always imagined that the crowd would have been vast but as the bible does not say so it is a matter of little importance. Some of the additional material is not helpful – for example the scene where the eyes of the unrepentant criminal on the cross, are plucked out by a crow. However I found that one scene of Jesus as a boy falling over and being picked up by his mother very moving and helpful. There are of course those who will say that this is wrong because it is adding to the bible. But is it wrong to think of what it would be like for Jesus to have been a boy? Did he ever play? Cry? Get hungry? Would it be wrong of a preacher to say these things even though they are not directly in the Bible? When a preacher gives background information which is not in the Bible is that ‘adding’ to the Scriptures? For example last Sunday I was talking about Jesus feeding the 5,000 and mentioned the fact that the disciples were probably orthodox Jews who carried a basket for food so that they could have ritually pure food – hence the 12 basketfuls of leftovers – one for each of the disciples. In giving some background information is that not additional to the Bible? Is that not adding to the Word? Or is it helping explain it and set it in context? Of course the Word that the Spirit has given us is the only authoritative and absolute source we have – but does that mean we are not allowed to ask about or suggest other things?

I was also impressed by the portrayal of the devil as a genderless cold menacing figure. It is quite clear that Mel Gibson believes in a literal devil and that there was a spiritual battle and struggle going on. He also believes in a literal resurrection. The Passion ends with the resurrection and a note to triumph and wonder.

The cinematography is excellent, the music suitable and the acting well balanced. What really works though is the use of Latin and Aramaic. When Gibson first announced he was going to make a film in these ancient languages most experts regarded it as a folly. Yet the use of the languages really helps. It is somehow much more credible to have them spoken rather than John Wayne declaring ‘Truly this man was the Son of God’ in a heavy American accent! Incidentally the same experts who laughed at the folly of Mel Gibson spending $25 million of his own money on a religious foreign language film, are now, after its stunning box office success, claiming that he only made it to make money!

In a sense though all of these are unimportant compared with the main thrust of the film. How do we react to the Cross of Christ? Gibson says that he wanted to achieve ‘introspection’, to get people to think. It certainly worked for me. I was profoundly moved by the sufferings of Christ as portrayed. I am not ashamed to say that I wept and that it made a deeper impact upon me emotionally than anything I have ever seen. This was not because of clever cinematography, emotional music or even the sight of all that horrific violence. I had been prepared for all that. Neither was it the result of ignorance. In fact almost the opposite. I know my bible. I know every scripture quoted and every biblical incident portrayed. And I know why Jesus suffered. It was for me that ‘he hung and suffered there’. In this sense it was personal.

One of my favourite films is Schindlers List. I watch it every year to remind me of why I am in the ministry and why I am a Christian. But I cannot watch it without being very upset. Not just because it is beautifully made nor just because it is a well told sad human story. I have always been interested in the holocaust and have studied it in some depth. The depth and scale of human depravity in that awful episode of human history never ceases to astound me. But how would I have felt if my parents had died in the holocaust, or if I had been one of the ones saved by Schindler? It would have been almost unbearable to watch because it would be real and personal. That is exactly the same with the Passion. It is personal to me. Deeply personal. It was the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. I know who crucified Jesus. It was me. So all that I saw of Christ’s physical suffering was profoundly disturbing. And I am not able to make the somewhat neat and arbitrary distinction between physical and spiritual suffering. In fact if the ‘spiritual’ suffering was what really mattered why bother to have the Cross at all? Why not just have Christ suffer ‘spiritually’ in some other place?

Those who speak about the spiritual sufferings of Christ being the important thing are sometimes almost dismissive of the physical. Indeed it is one of the major objections that some have to the film. Again I find myself having to agree with this to some extent. The Passion does not do a great job of portraying the alienation of the Son from the Father or the burden of his carrying the sins of the world. Perhaps it would be asking too much to see that conveyed in film – which after all is a far more limited medium that the written word. But there are those who seem to go almost to the other extreme – denying the importance and validity of the physical suffering of Christ. Evangelical Times for example declared “Evangelicals will deplore the unseemly emphasis on the physical sufferings of Christ, though many Roman Catholics will welcome such a portrayal”.” Why is it unseemly? Some argue that the Bible says very little about the physical sufferings of Jesus. I disagree. There is considerable detail. My bible tells me that they spat in his face, struck him with their fists, slapped him, mocked him, bound him, flogged him, stripped him, twisted together a crown of thorns and set it upon his head, struck him on the head with a staff and crucified him. Hardly a shortage of detail! Besides which I don’t notice a great deal of detail given in the Scriptures about the ‘spiritual suffering’. That does not make it unimportant.

The whole of the Gospels lead up the death of Christ. Indeed there is a good case for arguing that the Cross is the pivotal event of human history. And the Cross most certainly involved human physical suffering. Besides it is a very dangerous game to play the numbers game with the amount of space that the bible gives to a particular topic. If that were the case then the furnishings of the temple and the priestly garments would be more important than both the Trinity and the Cross! I am not sure that I can separate the physical and the spiritual sufferings of Christ. And I am not sure the Bible does. Jesus really suffered physically – he really endured intense pain. He suffered physically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally. I cannot neatly divide it up. More than that, every nail, thorn, blow and beating was the result of my sin. The Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. He did not just give himself ‘spiritually’ but in every way. In one sense the film only gives a part of what that involved. But then perhaps I will only ever understand a part. I will have all eternity to gaze at the nail marks in his hands – to see the slain Lamb in the midst of the throne – and wonder at just how much he suffered. So I am sorry. I do not have the patience or the time for those who want to put everything into a formula and discuss the philosophical nature of what type of suffering. I came away from that film absolutely convicted and convinced of the amazing love of Jesus Christ. Maybe you might want to argue that I should feel that all the time. Maybe you would be right. Maybe you have that awareness – but I do not. So many things get in the way of my sight of Christ. The Passion of the Christ cleared away a lot of the debris and helped me to think about Jesus and to love him more. How can that be wrong?

I am not saying that every one should go to see the film. There are good Christians who will not go to see it and who will have good reasons for not going. There is no problem with that. It is not the fifth Gospel! Nor am I going to state what every individuals response to it should be. But I am profoundly thankful that in every newspaper in the land, in every university and at dinner tables up and down the country one of the hottest topics of conversation this Easter is going to be the Cross of Christ. Our local contemporary arts cinema is hosting four discussions on the meaning of the Passion. You could not buy an opportunity like that! Whether you see the film or not, is that not a fantastic thing? And what a great opportunity for us to explain why Jesus died and who he is. I for one will be preaching a series of several sermons on the Passion of Christ – and I hope to hire our local cinema for a private screening of the film and have a short talk and perhaps questions and answers afterwards. Why? To allow friends, family, congregation and the many international students we have contact with who are asking why the Cross happened, to hear the Good News of Jesus. In that sense of course it is an evangelistic opportunity – not an opportunity to market the church, but simply an opportunity to tell people about Jesus and their need of a Saviour.

The film did not take away from the Word of God. Nor from the necessity of preaching. In fact for me it made it all the more essential. The film was so important and moving for me because I know why Christ suffered. And I know who suffered. Many many people will go to the cinema, watch this film and not know. We have to tell them. That is the important thing. Seeing this film is not an essential prelude to becoming a Christian. Hearing the word of Christ is. I know that there are those who will argue that The Passion communicates the gospel in image to a visual generation in a way which preaching does not. I disagree. The Passion is a graphic account of what crucifixion involves. It is a great reminder of what Christ suffered. But on its own it will not proclaim the Gospel. It can be a great help but more is needed. It does not tell us who Christ is, or really why he suffered. It does not say a great deal about the life of Christ, his miracles and context set within the whole Bible. Which is why we need the word and the Spirit. And that of course was true for the event itself. There were many who witnessed the Cross who were not converted by it. It was not until the day of Pentecost, when Peter preached the Word and the Spirit came that thousands were convicted and brought to a saving faith in Jesus. The crucified Christ needed to be preached. He still does.

I will leave the last word with Gibson: “Film I think is visceral. It has the power to draw you in and have you experience something on an emotional level that you may not be able logically to explain. However, it will leave you with a set of images or an experience or a feeling that make you want to look further. That’s all, the film is just a jumping off point…….To the best of my ability, I just tried to tell the story and to have some deeper meaning in that it would affect people and cause them to be introspective and to seek further. And if that happens, that’s a great thing, and that they can come to some truth.”

back