|
|
||
| You are - home - special index - Passion of Christ | ||
|
Mel v. Sam: The Passion of The Christ Who would have thought that Mel Gibson would turn out to be the top evangelist in the United States and most of the world? "Mad Max" morphs into Billy Graham! Yet that is precisely what has happened. Mel Gibsons The Passion of the Christ, is a movie that focuses on the last twelve hours of Jesus life on this earth. Mel has gotten the entire western world talking about our Savior and His death for our sins. How did he do it? His movie has been a major topic of discussion in all of the major media for the last two months. It ranked in the top five movies of all time for first day attendance. Before the movie was released, I was invited to a private showing. I attended and came away loving my Savior more than ever before. This movie may spark a world-wide revival in Christianity. The timing is perfect. With Islam on the rise, Christians need to be reminded of the centrality of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for our sins. Of course, the "usual suspects," those who oppose the cause of Christ, have been viciously attacking Mel and his movie. Little wonder. Jesus predicted such things:
Just recently, I have been hearing from some "unusual suspects." These are individuals who have been promoting the cause of Christ but are attacking The Passion of The Christ. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, a theology professor who retired from teaching at Andrews University, published a slashing attack on Mel Gibsons movie. He had not seen the movie, so I wrote to Sam telling him he was incompetent to critique the movie. Sam dutifully went to a theater, saw the movie and issued an even more slashing attack on the movie this week. You subscribe to the GoBible Bible Study of the Week because you are a Christian and want to teach others about God or learn more yourself. Unless you write to us, we have no way of knowing anything more about you than that. However, it is my feeling that many of our GoBible subscribers also subscribe to Sam Bacchiocchis newsletter which discusses various religious topics. If you have never heard of Sam, then you can turn to something else. But if you know Sam and respect his opinions you should read on. Sam Bacchiocchi is a respected theologian and author. Sam and I do not always agree on theology, but I admire and appreciate some of his valuable work. The reason why I take this most unusual step of sending a letter (rather than a Bible study) to you, a GoBible subscriber, is that I fear that you will read Sams slashing attack on The Passion and thus refuse to see this movie. I encourage every adult to go see this movie because it is more effective than all of my Bible studies put together in bringing people face to face with the incredible love and sacrifice of our Savior. The movie is beyond words. Sam starts out his attack on the movie by noting "that the average person lacks both the biblical and historical knowledge needed to evaluate its accuracy." Sam is certainly right that he is more knowledgeable about the Bible and church history than 99% of the population. However, his implied conclusion that we should defer to his judgment on The Passion is not correct. The text of the gospels is available to everyone who views the movie. The "average person" is able to compare the movie with the Bible text and determine whether the movie is a reasonable portrayal of the Biblical events. Just as important, superior knowledge does not always result in correct conclusions. Knowledge must be subjected to critical thinking to reach a right result. Sam has the advantage over me and his "average person" in that he is a formally educated theologian. I have an advantage over Sam and the average person in that my doctorate in law formally trained me in critical thinking. Im not asking you to accept my opinion based on my educational background, I am simply asking you to consider the arguments and decide for yourself. This article is not about Sam and me. Instead, this letter is about you and your decision about seeing this remarkable, potentially life-changing film. If you have read Sams newsletters about The Passion and have decided not to see the movie, I ask you to read what follows. I have taken Sams major attacks on the movie, which were contained in his most recent newsletter, and responded to them. Can Any Good Thing Come Out of Nazareth? Sam repeatedly attacks The Passion based on the fact that Gibson is Catholic and the Catholic Church supports the film. Almost every criticism that Sam has of this film he manages turn into an attack on Catholic theology. Is it fair to say that Mel Gibson is a Catholic and therefore he cannot create an accurate depiction of the last few hours of Jesus life on earth? You will recall that when Nathanael was told that Jesus came from Nazareth he asked (John 1:46) if anything good could come from Nazareth? Nathanael had doubts about Jesus because of His background. The Bible answer is applicable here:
You should see the film and decide for yourself. Arguing that Catholics like the film and thus we should avoid it is like arguing that prominent Jewish organizations have viciously attacked the film and therefore we should see it. The fact that some Catholics like the film and some Jews hate it, should not cause anyone to conclude that the merits of the film should be determined by its friends (or enemies). If this were valid logic, it would mean that Sam was aligned with Jewish theology. No one who has read his writings would think that. Instead of condemning the film based on its friends, the film needs to be judged on its own merits. Sam unfairly attacks the film for being anti-Semitic. I did not see that in the film and I doubt you will either. I certainly agree that we should be very careful not to needlessly offend Jews. Yet I wish that Sam were one-quarter as solicitous for our fellow Christian brothers and sisters in the Catholic Church as he is for our Jewish friends. Any Catholic reading Sams review of the The Passion would shudder. This is not to say that we should blind our eyes to the theology of the film maker. The fact that Mel Gibson is a Christian and a Catholic should make us alert to potential doctrinal conflicts. However, it should not cause us to find Catholic theology lurking where it does not exist. The Movie Inflates Jesus Suffering: Time and time again Sam repeats his argument that the movie shows Jesus suffering more than He actually did. According to Sam, "what shocked me the most is the relentless torture of Christs body." Here is an example of this type of charge which Sam repeatedly makes:
Another example is this:
It seems most curious to me that a minister of the gospel would claim that Jesus suffering "was not that bad." That His suffering could somehow be "blown out of proportion." I can picture Sam entering heaven and meeting Jesus for the first time. Jesus says, "Oh, I know who you are - youre that guy who argued that my last hours on earth `were not that bad." Those are not words I want said to me! Is it possible that the movie makes it appear Jesus suffered more than He did? Here is what the Bible says about the temptations Jesus faced:
This means that Jesus faced every temptation and trial that humans have ever faced. Do you really think that Satan gave Jesus "a pass" on suffering and tempted and tried ordinary humans more than Jesus? Such a conclusion makes no sense for the entire outcome of the controversy between good and evil rode on the shoulders of Jesus during those final hours. No doubt the full fury of Satans wrath was poured out on our Savior. Consider then what the Bible reports ordinary Christians suffered at the hands of Satan:
The Bible tells us that followers of Jesus have been "sawed in two" at the hands of Satan and his followers. Is what is depicted in The Passion worse than being sawed in two? I did not think so. How many of you have read of sadistic humans who torture and then behead children? Does a follower of God have any doubt about the source of such evil? Are some humans more evil than Satan, the author of evil? Of course not. Is there any doubt that Satan "pulled out all the stops" when it came to attacking Jesus during those final hours which were critical to the battle between him and Jesus? Nothing was "below" Satan in those hours. That Jesus received a hellish beating is revealed by the fact that He could no longer carry His cross. Consider that Jesus was a young man, in the prime of life, a man who must have been in excellent physical condition because He walked everywhere. Yet the gospels reveal:
What kind of beating would it have taken to render Jesus incapable of carrying His cross - obviously the kind of beating that Gibson portrays in his movie. Sams charge that portraying Jesus suffering in its true light somehow promotes Catholic theology is simply mind-boggling. If Catholics believe that Jesus suffering was extreme, and Protestants think the reports were "overblown," then I think the Catholics have it right! However, as Sam points out in his article, popular Protestants agree that Gibsons portrayal is accurate. Thus the issue is not "Catholics v. Protestants," it is "Chistians v. Sam." When we are informed by the Bible and logic, it becomes clear that Mel Gibson could not have created an "R rated" film which really showed us what happened to Jesus during the last twelve hours of His life. Gibsons film, without any doubt, fails to show the full fury of Satan and his followers directed towards our Lord. Gibson added stuff: Sams next charge is that Mel Gibson added stuff to his film from non-Biblical sources. Here is an example of Sams charges:
Any student of the gospel knows that the accounts contained in them are very abridged statements of what actually happened. Consider what John said about this:
John tells us that the gospels are significantly abridged! All of the gospels put together add up to around 200 pages of text. That means each account of Jesus life covers only about 50 pages. That is not much - about a page and a half per year of Jesus life. That the account of the last twelve hours of His life should be abridged in the Bible should come as no surprise. It is more than a little strange that Sam would attack Mels movie because it added information from non-Biblical sources. At the end of his attack, Sam favorably cites as an accurate source Ellen Whites book, The Great Controversy. Ellen White wrote a book on the life of Jesus called The Desire of Ages. It is a great book and it runs 835 pages. Obviously, for White to inflate a 50 page Biblical account into 835 pages required the addition of not a small amount of additional stuff - and all from non-Biblical sources. Since Sam would undoubtedly recommend the reading of the Desire of Ages notwithstanding its non-Biblical additions, the mere elaboration of a gospel story is not an adequate ground for criticism. The relevant question is not whether Gibson "added stuff," but whether what he added is inconsistent with, or detracts from, the gospel account? Whites book, The Desire of Ages, substantially undercuts Sams criticisms for another very important reason. My first year of law school I rented a basement apartment from a family who lived near the school. My landlords elderly father was an avid follower of Edgar Cayce. Cayce was a prominent psychic who claimed to be able to predict the future. Since this elderly man was "into" the future, I gave him a copy of Whites The Great Controversy because it contains Bible-based predictions about the future. The old man read this long book and came back with only one terse comment, "Shes pretty hard on Catholics." It was true that White did not write very favorably about the Catholic Church. The irony of all of this is that the "added stuff" in Mels movie, which Sam argues promotes Catholic theology, is often the same "added stuff" that White includes in The Desire of Ages. No one who is acquainted with Whites writings would harbor even the slightest suspicion that she was promoting Catholic theology! Lets look at some examples of the "added stuff" next. Chains, Dirt, Snakes and Riots: Sam seizes upon several "facts" in the movie, which are not specifically recited in any of the gospel accounts, as proof the film is suspect or a carrier for "Catholic" theology. Sam writes:
In more than one place Sam objects to the size of the chains in the movie. Since no one knows the actual size of the chains used on Jesus (or even if there were chains) the relevance of the size of the chains escapes me. Surely chain size does not undercut the gospel accounts. Sam also complains that the movie shows a furious crowd (which Sam terms a "riot") around Jesus. Sam argues that the Bible shows a much more peaceful scene. He quotes Luke and then comments:
Compare the relative peace Sam envisions with Whites description of the event in The Desire of Ages:
White recites a similar event later in the day:
Sam argues that Gibson showed a riot scene to sell tickets or promote some Catholic agenda. What reason did White have for painting an essentially similar picture? Indeed, Whites picture of Jesus before Herod is much more violent than Gibsons portrayal before Herod. The reason why White portrays a violent mob is that showing a riotous mob is consistent with the gospel accounts. Sam also takes exception to the way the movie depicts Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. He writes that Jesus:
Here is what the gospel of Luke tells us:
How would someone look who was sweating blood? Like he just finished a nice meal in a restaurant? If a person where under such stress that they actually sweated blood, then it seems most reasonable that they would not only look a little frightening, but would seem to have something like "mud or grease" on their face. Indeed, what Jesus had on His face was blood mixed with sweat. Sams picture of Jesus looking as if He had just eaten a peaceful meal is completely at odds with the gospel report. Once again, Ellen White agrees with Mel Gibson. She recounts that when Jesus spoke to His disciples in Gethsemane "they hardly knew Him, His face was so changed by anquish." D.A. p. 689 Later she continues, "[The disciples] saw His face marked with the bloody sweat of agony, and they were filled with fear." To support her extra-Biblical description of Jesus face, White cites Isaiah:
Quite obviously, White and Gibson reached virtually identical conclusions on how Jesus looked in Gethsemane. Gibsons portrayal can hardly be some sort of Catholic plot. Sam also complains that Satan is depicted in the movie and that Jesus crushes the head of a snake. Sam writes:
Sam is correct that the gospels do not picture Jesus stamping on the head of a snake. Instead, it is Genesis which makes an allusion to this:
The fact that this allusion to crushing the snake is in Genesis instead of one of the gospels hardly seems a basis for complaint. As to Sams complaint about depicting Satan as being present, it is obvious that a movie is visual. Does Sam have any doubt that Satan was actually present during the last twelve hours of Jesus life? If so, on what basis can he complain that Mel Gibson shows Satan being present? Consider in this context another of Whites depictions of the scene:
White was not out to sell tickets. She was not out to promote the Catholic Church or its theology. To believe that Satan was present is simple common sense informed by the Bible. If Gibson had not depicted Satan in the movie, those who are not students of the Bible would not have made the connection that Satan was present. An Absent Mother: Sam bitterly complains that Gibsons film promotes the heresy that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a "co-redemptrix" because she is shown in the film as following Jesus on His way to the cross. Here is what Sam says:
I am astonished at the lengths to which Sam goes to project Catholic theology into what seems to be a reasonable retelling of the story. Let me ask you parents who read this: If your child were heading towards his death, and you loved your child, would you not want to be as close as possible to your child during the last few hours of your childs life? The answer is obvious - any loving parent would want to be close. Yet Sam unfairly brands the natural desire of every parents heart as some sort of insidious promotion of Catholic theology. Again, consider what White says about this event:
White recounts the role of Mary in much the same way Gibson recounts it. She says, unlike Sam, that Mary had followed the steps of Jesus all the way to Calvary. Does the fact that White portrays the scene much as does Gibson suggest that she has some hidden agenda to promote Mary worship? The suggestion is ridiculous to those who are acquainted with Whites very strong anti-Catholic statements The Film is Anti-Semitic: As I mentioned above, I wish Sam were a fraction as solicitous of the feelings of Catholics as he is of Jews. However, an unfair attack on anyone because of religious beliefs is improper. Sam alleges:
Sams statement about the Jews and Romans in the movie is simply not accurate. The movie clearly shows that there was dissent in the Sanhedrin over the condemnation of Jesus. The film shows that the sadistic Roman soldiers were acting contrary to the wishes of their supervisor and Pilate. The movie depicts a Jewish bystander offering Jesus water. At the same time, facts are a hard thing. Clearly the nationality of the people who condemned and put Jesus to death is not a matter of debate if the Bible is accepted as true. The people on the scene were Jews and Romans. It was not the Scots and Norwegians who were present. Sam ignores the movie and the lessons of the Bible when he claims:
The movie never makes any attempt to claim that "the Jewish people as a whole [were] guilty." In addition, the fact that some ultimately accepted Jesus as God does not prevent them from being part of the mob calling for His death. The Bible reports this about the stoning of an early church leader named Stephen:
As students of the Bible know, Saul later became the great apostle Paul. The fact that Paul was later converted and became a great warrior for God did not prevent him from supporting the stoning of Stephen. Consider Whites account of the change in the group:
Obviously, White believed that the crowd was fickle since she painted a picture of the locals changing their mind in a single week. Even if it is true that by the time of Acts half of Jerusalem had been converted to Christianity, that says little about the attitude of those present in the mob which surrounded Jesus in His final hours. The Film is Unfair to the Romans: Sam complains about the way the Romans looked. He thought they should have been better looking in the movie. Here is what he says:
Here is what White says:
White suggests that Jesus "torturers" appeared sub-human. I wonder how Sam would cast a sub-human torturer? Apparently they would have to possess fine teeth and have a pleasant look about them. Conclusion: Sam slashes on for about 33 pages. I am not going to answer every charge that he makes. However, I believe I have answered every major attack and have given the reader an accurate feeling for the nature of Sams attacks. Let me close with a comparison of how Sam and I spent our time following a viewing of The Passion. Here is how Sam recounts he spent his time:
Indeed, I spent the night wondering how can any sane person produce such a gory, gruesome, and bloody exaggeration of Christ's Passion. I could not help but question Gibson's mental sanity." While Sam spent his time questioning the sanity* of Mel Gibson, I barely managed to control myself as I hurried back to my hotel room. Once I got into my room I fell to the floor crying, confessing my sins and apologizing to Jesus that it was my sins which had caused Him so much pain and suffering. I was sorry my sins had hurt Him so badly. I was simply astonished at His love for me. As a father, I knew that I would NEVER allow my son to go through that. Humans would have been "toast" had I been God the Father. That God the Father and God the Son would voluntarily go through this for me was beyond anything I could understand. Simply unbelievable. I determined that I would never again take the sin in my life lightly. Bruce N. Cameron, J.D. Copr. 2004 GoBible.org * Of all of the vicious attacks on Mel Gibson, I have never heard anyone question his sanity. That Sam should do so says something about him that I do not like to contemplate.
|
||
