The Passion of the Christ
I have held off expressing an opinion because until tonight I had not seen it. Now that I have seen it, I feel able to comment.
"The Passion of the Christ" is a powerful movie. In fact, there has never been anything like it. Its purpose is to leave you with an impression, and it does. The torments the Lord Jesus Christ suffered at the hands of men are displayed with graphic vividness. It is not an easy movie to see, and it is NOT a movie for children. But I believe it will help you on your spiritual walk.
Go see it. That's my opinion. But what about all the controversy? I guess I should address some of these controversies. First, is it anti-semitic? The answer is no. Absolutely not! Only someone who has a predetermined reason for wanting to find anti-semitism will find it. Likewise, only someone with a predetermined reason for wanting to hate the Jews will find excuses to hate the Jews in this movie. Some of the Jewish religious leaders are portrayed in a bad light, but some are portrayed in a good light (as opposing this mockery of a trial). Some of the Jewish crowds are presented in a bad light, but some are presented as genuinely devastated by the sufferings of the Lord. In fact it is the Romans who come off looking the worst. And the Scripture is quoted making it clear that the Lord Jesus, as the Good Shepherd, was willing to lay down his life and did not have it taken from him. In other words, Jesus is the victor and not the victim.
But what about the extra-biblical material? Isn't it wrong to add to the word of God? I would answer that "The Passion" is not trying to be a visual representation of the Bible, but rather to leave a powerful impression. Artistic license is employed. Some scenes are made up. And some scenes are dramatisized. But unlike some other films, the purpose is not blasphemous. Is it acceptable for an artistic presentation to leave the Inspired Text? You may differ in your opinion, but I believe it is acceptable in a work that does not claim to be fully Biblical. Besides, I have heard many preachers take great liberties with the Biblical text from the pulpit, and not receive the same amount of criticism. How many times have I heard men suggest that Moses could have been next in line for the throne of Egypt? And how many times has a man explained the significance of the communion loaf in terms of the grinding and baking that is required to make bread. I consider these deviations from the text far more seriously than I do those in "The Passion". Some of the artistic parts are creepy, and at least one is pointless, but these do serve the purpose of providing an impression.
Some have complained about the Roman Catholic background to this work. In fact, the only Catholic parts I could discern were Peter and John occasionally referring to Mary as "Mother". Others complain that having seen this film they will think about it when reading the Bible. I've seen the 10 Commandments a dozen times but I don't think of Charleston Heston when I read about Moses in the Bible. Likewise for the Jesus film.
No doubt some will take it upon themselves to warn their fellow Christians against this film. These are the same people who will warn you that Billy Graham doesn't really preach the Gospel, Jerry Falwell is actually a liberal, George Bush Jr is not really a Christian and James Dobson is really... well I've forgotten what they accuse Dobson of but he is definitely on their hit list. When accepted as an artistic work, we must balance it off against what it is accomplishing. In the workplace, Muslims, Hindus and others are asking me questions. Tonight a family of Muslims walked into the film. Just in my circles of acquaintances, at least one person saw the film and felt the need to be born again. Does this replace the Bible. Of course not. But it is a film worth seeing.
"The Passion of the Christ" is a powerful movie. In fact, there has never been anything like it. Its purpose is to leave you with an impression, and it does. The torments the Lord Jesus Christ suffered at the hands of men are displayed with graphic vividness. It is not an easy movie to see, and it is NOT a movie for children. But I believe it will help you on your spiritual walk.
Go see it. That's my opinion. But what about all the controversy? I guess I should address some of these controversies. First, is it anti-semitic? The answer is no. Absolutely not! Only someone who has a predetermined reason for wanting to find anti-semitism will find it. Likewise, only someone with a predetermined reason for wanting to hate the Jews will find excuses to hate the Jews in this movie. Some of the Jewish religious leaders are portrayed in a bad light, but some are portrayed in a good light (as opposing this mockery of a trial). Some of the Jewish crowds are presented in a bad light, but some are presented as genuinely devastated by the sufferings of the Lord. In fact it is the Romans who come off looking the worst. And the Scripture is quoted making it clear that the Lord Jesus, as the Good Shepherd, was willing to lay down his life and did not have it taken from him. In other words, Jesus is the victor and not the victim.
But what about the extra-biblical material? Isn't it wrong to add to the word of God? I would answer that "The Passion" is not trying to be a visual representation of the Bible, but rather to leave a powerful impression. Artistic license is employed. Some scenes are made up. And some scenes are dramatisized. But unlike some other films, the purpose is not blasphemous. Is it acceptable for an artistic presentation to leave the Inspired Text? You may differ in your opinion, but I believe it is acceptable in a work that does not claim to be fully Biblical. Besides, I have heard many preachers take great liberties with the Biblical text from the pulpit, and not receive the same amount of criticism. How many times have I heard men suggest that Moses could have been next in line for the throne of Egypt? And how many times has a man explained the significance of the communion loaf in terms of the grinding and baking that is required to make bread. I consider these deviations from the text far more seriously than I do those in "The Passion". Some of the artistic parts are creepy, and at least one is pointless, but these do serve the purpose of providing an impression.
Some have complained about the Roman Catholic background to this work. In fact, the only Catholic parts I could discern were Peter and John occasionally referring to Mary as "Mother". Others complain that having seen this film they will think about it when reading the Bible. I've seen the 10 Commandments a dozen times but I don't think of Charleston Heston when I read about Moses in the Bible. Likewise for the Jesus film.
No doubt some will take it upon themselves to warn their fellow Christians against this film. These are the same people who will warn you that Billy Graham doesn't really preach the Gospel, Jerry Falwell is actually a liberal, George Bush Jr is not really a Christian and James Dobson is really... well I've forgotten what they accuse Dobson of but he is definitely on their hit list. When accepted as an artistic work, we must balance it off against what it is accomplishing. In the workplace, Muslims, Hindus and others are asking me questions. Tonight a family of Muslims walked into the film. Just in my circles of acquaintances, at least one person saw the film and felt the need to be born again. Does this replace the Bible. Of course not. But it is a film worth seeing.
posted by Shawn Abigail at 10:40 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home