Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ"

"The Passion of Christ": Mel Gibson's Faithful Witness to Christ
Norman J. Lund, M.Div.; M.Th.; Ph.D.
March 6, 2004

When I watched the "The Passion of Christ" I was struck, not only by how faithful the historical account was to Scripture, but by how much of Scripture is actually quoted in the film. The film opens with a black screen and this quotation from Isaiah 53:5, in white letters - "He was wounded for our transgressions..." The text of Scripture appears frequently on the screen in subtitles which translate the Aramaic and Latin language of the actors into English. All seven of Christ's last words from the cross are included, including: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." In flashbacks to Jesus' earlier ministry there are passages from the Sermon on the Mount, including: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Scenes from the Last Supper include Christ's words: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me;" and also His promise: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." As a Christian (Protestant) scholar who has studied and taught Scripture for all of my adult life, I was struck by the film's faithfulness to Scripture.

My second impression was that whoever is responsible for this film must both believe in Jesus and really love Him. You would have to see the film to understand what I mean by that. The way in which the story is portrayed is neither sentimental nor sensational. I was on my guard, having been warned ahead of time about the amount of violence. The movie is realistic. One senses that this is about as close as one could come to being there, historically, without actually having been there. But there is a gentle touch to the camera. One also senses, clearly, that the message is what counts. This isn't the actual Jesus I'm looking at. But these are His actual words. In that sense I would have to say that the movie is evangelistic. The message rises above the image. The script is Scripture. Key texts and details are incorporated from all four of the Gospels. It is done so effectively that most viewers probably overlook the depth of the artistic achievement. The movie allows the message to come alive; it is faithful to Scripture. Our Lord Jesus declared that: "every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God" (Lk. 12:8). Mel Gibson has risked his reputation and career to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the crucified and risen Son of God. He has used the talents which God has given him to acknowledge that Jesus is Lord (1 Cor. 12:3) in the midst of "an adulterous and sinful generation" (Mk. 8:38).

I have been astounded by the severity of some so-called "Christian" condemnations of this movie.  The review essay, “The Passion of Christ”: Mel Gibson’s Vivid Deception," by Richard Bennett and J. Virgil Dunbar, is distinguished from others that I have read by the sharpness of its tone and the presumptuousness of its accusations. It is filled with ad hominem and ad baculum. The authors, Bennett and Dunbar, condemn the movie as: "a blasphemy against Christ;" "a deception and a blasphemy against God;" and an "utterly evil deceit." These self-appointed judges actually warn those who attend or endorse the movie that they "may very well go to hell" unless they "repent publicly." As incredible as it may seem, these heavy indictments are all made by "Christian" judges who have not even seen the film.  Such judges who threaten others with "the sword of Christ Jesus' mouth" (p. 9), should themselves remember these words from Christ's mouth: "I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter" (Matt. 12:36). The arguments of Bennett and Dunbar are unfounded, ungracious, inconsistent, sectarian, and short-sighted.

The view of idolatry put forth in the "Vivid Deception" critique is shallow and superficial. As such, It is unfounded Scripturally. In both the Old and New Testaments the warnings against idolatry include notae propriae, or distinctive characteristics, which define the sin of idolatry. Only by an illogical and uncharitable twisting of the truth can these criteria be thought to apply to Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ."  In the key passage with the golden calf in Ex. 32, the defining characteristics of idolatry include the following:

    (1) impatience of pride and unbelief in waiting for God to act and for Moses to return (Ex. 32:1);
    (2) identification of the external object(s) with God, e.g.: "make us gods;" "these are your gods" (Ex. 32:1-4);
    (3) idolization of the objects in worship, e.g.: "he built an altar... to the LORD;" "they offered... offerings" (Ex. 32: 5-6a);
    (4) immorality: "and the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play" (Ex. 32:6b).

In the New Testament, these notae are repeated. In his great opening statement about God's wrath in Romans, Chapter 1, St. Paul mentions all four of the notae from the Pentateuch:

    (1) impatience of pride and unbelief: "suppress the truth... did not honor him...did not see fit to acknowledge God" (Rom. 1:18, 21);
    (2) identification of the external object(s) with God: "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images" (Rom. 1:23);
    (3) idolization of the objects in worship: "worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom. 1:25);
    (4) immorality: "They were filled with all manner of wickedness" (Rom. 1:29).

The same four notae are repeated elsewhere in the New Testament, although the emphasis is somewhat different. The signs of idolatry (notae) which are most emphasized in the New Testament are not external objects such as the golden calf, but rather the idolatry of pride and immorality. In the other letters of St. Paul the identification of external objects with God and their idolization in worship has almost disappeared as an issue since: "we know that 'an idol has no real existence'" (I Cor. 8:4). It is not Christians, but "pagans," who offer "sacrifce to demons" (I Cor. 10:19-20).  However, two of the Old Testament signs still remain as sober warnings for believers:

    (1) immorality: "Now these things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did"; "We must not indulge in immorality
         as some of them did" (I Cor. 10:6-8);
    (2) impatience of pride and unbelief: "We must not put God to the test, as some of them did... nor grumble... Therefore
         let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (I Cor. 10:9-12).

It should be noted, therefore, that in the New Testament the warnings against idolatry are focused upon these two specific aspects of idolatry: pride, the root of idolatry; and immorality, the fruit of idolatry.  None of the condemnations of The Passion which I have read accuse Mel Gibson or the movie of encouraging or committing these particular sins. Yet the Passion-critics insist that the movie somehow commits "blasphemy," and accuses those who recommend the movie to be guilty of "idolatry."  It grieves my heart to see some Christians so quickly and without Biblical justification accuse other Christians of committing sin. It runs counter to the Spirit and the teaching of Jesus: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:43-44); "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you" (Jn. 16:12); "Speaking the truth in love we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:15); "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (I Cor. 13:1).

It is one thing to raise a concern or to warn other Christians about potential dangers associated with controversial things like this. It is also fair and commendable to say, "I can't participate in this activity; my conscience won't let me."  However, it is an entirely different matter to pronounce judgment upon others and to presume to dictate for their consciences. That attitude is far removed from the Christlike approach of St. Paul: "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22); "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28). These so-called "Christian" attacks on The Passion are un-Christlike.

Christians should be acutely aware of how offensive the cross is to unbelievers. It is astounding that a film like this, about Jesus and about the cross, has been produced in a culture like ours. Mel Gibson has risked and received great public ridicule and disdain to make this movie.  True Christians know that "Christ crucified" is "a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles" (1 Cor. 1:22). It is inconceivable that anyone but a Christian would publish a Scripturally based account of the crucifixion, whether in text or film (or both, as in this film, with the text printed on the screen). For those who insist that Mel Gibson cannot be a Christian since he is a Roman Catholic, or that his Catholic affiliation somehow nullifies his testimony, remember what Scripture says: "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3); "For he that is not against us is for us" (Mk. 9:40). Even if we had overwhelming proof that Mr. Gibson was not a Christian, or that his intentions were questionable, remember what Paul said in a similar situation: "Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry... What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Chist is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice" (Phil. 1:15).

The logical position of the "Vivid Deception" is inconsistent. On the one hand, it condemns any "visual representation of the Lord Jesus" as necessarily guilty of "grievous heresy." On the other hand, it praises an essay by another Passion-critic, Andrew J. Webb, who in turn praises the Jesus Film because it has been produced by Protestants ("Five Reasons Not to Go See The Passion of Christ," p. 6, n. 31). In his essay Rev. Webb endorses "The Jesus Film" produced by Campus Crusade for Christ because it: "is unabashedly Protestant and Evangelical in its production and message and [because it] has been widely used in evangelizing Roman Catholics." Apparently, it isn't the "visual representation" as such that is so objectionable after all. It is rather the theology of the one producing the visual representation.  Rev. Webb explains that his objection to The Passion of Christ is that: "it is a Roman Catholic movie, made by a Roman Catholic director, with Roman Catholic theological advisers, and which gained the endorsement of Pope John Paul II." That argument is not only uncharitable; it is also a logical fallacy: an ad hominem argument which tells us nothing about the actual quality or content of the film.

Of course, if these critics were consistent they would, on principle, have to condemn the Jesus film along with the Gibson film.  It too depicts Jesus, and in much the same way.  The Jesus film has been used by missionaries around the world for over two decades as a tool for presenting the Gospel message. It is one of the tools which has been used, for example, in China, and more recently with Muslims.  Is that a violation of the commandment against graven images?  My wife and I have been supporting the Jesus film project for several years. We are therefore familiar with the continuing reports of lost souls from remote lands who are coming to a living faith in Christ through watching the film. They don't worship the image in the film, but they put their faith in the One to whom the film bears witness. Why should The Passion of Christ be any different?  What about all of the other thousands of "visual representations" (pictures and paintings) of our Lord, including the work of Raphael, Rembrandt, Michelango and Leonardo Da'Vinci? What about the classic paintings (especially for children) of: Jesus Receiving the Children; Jesus at the Pilot Wheel; or Jesus the Good Shepherd? Are all of these "graven images"?   What about the wonderful drawings of Frances Hook used to illustrate children's Bibles? (See, e.g.: http://www.christcenteredmall.com/stores/art/hook/head-of-Christ.htm) Are all of these works of art violations of the commandment against idolatry?

To Lutherans like myself, iconoclastic criticisms of this movie sound very sectarian. Calvinist critics should know that Lutherans don't even have a separate commandment for idolatry in our catechism. Luther kept the traditional enumeration of the commandments. In Luther's catechism the second commandment is: "Thou shalt not take the take the name of the Lord your God in vain." (Lutherans divide the final commandment about coveting into two separate commandments.) Luther never agreed that external images were such a special threat. He was too familiar with the corruption of the heart. The worst idols are not physical. Luther knew that internal affections present a greater danger.  He parted company with Karlstadt and the other iconoclasts of the Reformation. Luther said that idolatry is primarily a matter of the heart: "That to which your heart clings and entrusts itself is, I say, really your God" (Large Catechism). The "graven image" condemned in the Old Testament was a static icon (i.e. a fixed, material image; e.g. the golden calf) which was identified with (equated with) God. I have never met anyone making that kind of identification with a painting or a movie (unless maybe the Hollywood "teen idols," etc.) However, I have sure met a lot of people who make idols out of self, money, property, fame, fortune, etc. I agree with those who beleive that idolatry is a tremendous issue and that the sin of idolatry is alive and well. However, I don't see it manifest in the same (superficial) way. Even Calvin agreed that a discerning believer can in good conscience distinguish between an image and that which is imaged, without falling into sin. It appears to me that idolatry today is manifest primarily in the cult of self-worship and devotion to material pleasure (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 10:7; 2 Tim. 3:1-5). If the zealous, iconoclastic Passion-critics were correct, then most Christians in the world (past and present) have been unknowing "idolators," including Martin Luther, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, J.S. Bach, G.F. Handel, C.S. Lewis, and G.K. Chesterton, myself, and most of the Christians I have ever met.  The viewpoint of the Passion-critics is sectarian.

C.S. Lewis discussed his view of "anthropomorphic images" of God at several key points in his career. In a Time Magazine interview in 1947 he argued that it isn't possible to think about God without having some image in mind. Different people have different reasons for denying this reality. Some are religiously motivated and some are not.  Nevertheless, Lewis argued, our minds are made in such a way we can't think without images. Consequently, when we think about God, we will either have true (Biblical) images, or false (unBiblical) ones. Lewis believed, as Time put it, that: "a Christian can do worse than imagine God as a fatherly ancient with a white beard." Lewis explained his thinking like this:

            When [people] try to get rid of man-like, or, as they are called, 'anthropomorphic,' images, they merely succeed in substituting images
            of some other kinds. 'I don't believe in a personal God,' says one, 'but I do believe in a great spiritual force.' What he has not noticed is