Mel Gibson’s “Passion”

Terry Mattingly
shows us another angle. His religion column,
“The
passion of old words and symbols“
(01-21-04), relates Mel
Gibson’s goals and beliefs to the Catholic Mass:

“It is crucial to
realize that the images and language at the heart of ‘The
Passion of the Christ’ flow directly out of Gibson’s personal
dedication to Catholicism in one of its most traditional and
mysterious forms — the 16th century Latin Mass.

    
“‘I don’t go to any other services,’ the director [Mel Gibson]
told the Eternal Word Television Network. ‘I go to the old
Tridentine Rite. That’s the way that I first saw it when I was a
kid. So I think that that informs one’s understanding of how to
transcend language….

    
“The goal of the movie is to shake modern audiences by brashly
juxtaposing the ‘sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of
the altar — which is the same thing,’ said Gibson.

    
“This ancient union of symbols and sounds has never lost its
hold on him. There is, he stressed, ‘a lot of power in these
dead languages.’ Thus, the seemingly bizarre choice of Latin and
Aramaic was actually part of the message. The goal of Gibson’s
multicultural, multilingual team was to make a statement that
transcended any one time, culture and tongue.”

“We
need to remember that the last time dramatic presentations
replaced preaching as the main vehicle by which the truth of the
Bible was communicated was during the medieval times when the
church refused to allow the translation of the Bible into common
languages and when in place of the preaching and teaching of
God’s word, the common people were given visual presentations
such as Passion Plays, statues, relics, and icons.

   
“These things were designed, like most visual imagery, to
play upon the emotions and stimulate a response; but the ability
to evoke an emotional response via imagery or drama is not the
same as successfully transmitting the Gospel.”

In recent times, the
entertainment media have been leading this cultural shift from
written facts to visual images — and from history to storytelling.
Pictures and plausible suggestions that stir the imagination and
evoke strong feelings are fast distorting both truth and facts. In
other words, the foundations
for learning and for understanding reality (our worldview) has shifted
from absolute truth to changeable impressions and peer consensus —
and the stronger the emotional stimuli (shock value), the weaker our rational resistance
to change. God’s Word “tells us to test all things; hold fast what
is good. Abstain from every form of evil.”

When behavioral “scientists” half a century ago
linked their research on emotional manipulation to group dialogue
(the consensus process), they sowed the seeds for today’s postmodern
mindset. Today, our youth think “dialectically.” Many are perfectly
comfortable blending their flexible understanding of the Bible with
the world’s contrary values. Since they have learned to flow with
the emotional thrills that permeate our culture, they are
susceptible to all kinds of subtle deviations as well as to overt
heresies. But they are not alone.  

Education, business
and church leaders have all embraced this change. Today’s “change
leaders” know that it’s far easier to
manipulate a hedonistic nation by enticing images than by persuasive
words. And the pictures we collectively enjoy help establish the collective values needed for the
global changes ahead. Synthesizing (blending) all
kinds of images and suggestions — including Wordless pictures
of “Jesus” fleshing out the details not written in the
gospels — will surely speed this paradigm shift in the church.
[See
The Power of Suggestion and
Movie Magic and Unconscious Learning]

Yet, Mel Gibson’s version of
the gospel includes several incidents not mentioned in the Bible. “

Tom Carter, President of CAP
Ministry at cap@capalert.com,
shows some of the details. He wrote the following comments after watching a
pre-release private screening of the movie:

“Many clever devices
were used to express thoughts and ideas. One was when Christ was on
the cross, the camera’s field of view of Golgotha with Jesus on the
Cross was shrunk, taken up into the clouds then fell back to earth
as a raindrop, expressing a tear of God.  Another was displayed as
Satan and his hold over death and sin was defeated by the death of
Jesus.  Satan was figuratively dragged down to Hell, crumpled and
bankrupt of his due through the sins of mankind.The imagery of this
portrayal was inescapable.  

“Another clever device
was how, when God caused the veil of the temple of Herod to be split
in two, top to bottom, that Gibson had the throne split in two as
well…. But I’ll not argue the details.  It was a nice poetic
touch, Mel.  Besides, who is to say the throne did not rent? A
clever fellow indeed, this Mel Gibson.  Welcome to the Bride, my
brother in Christ.

“Casting a woman as Satan? Though her gender is never obvious in the
film, the part was played by the androgynous Rosalinda Celentano….
Her demeanor and countenance combined with the slow motion
photography clearly depicted Satanic deviousness and hunger for
evil.”

But the Roman soldiers were just following orders. They bore no
grudge against Jesus. He was no threat to them. Why would they show such
inhuman cruelty? In contrast, Jesus
was a real threat to the lifestyle, prestige and teaching of the Pharisees.
That’s why most of them despised Him. Yet, that’s no reason to call the story of the
gospel antisemitic. After all, Jesus and his disciples were all Jews.

The point is, does the movie
imprint a true story in our minds and memory, or does it distort the
Biblical account under the banner of truth?

5.
Might traditional Roman Catholic myths distort our view of the
gospel facts?

“Protestants see the
‘Passion of Christ’ film as a great evangelistic tool.”

Mel Gibson’s sources
of inspiration for The Passion
include the visions of
the 18th century mystic,
Anna Katharina Emmerich.  Author Michael Brown
gives us some glimpses of her life. They remind me of the
enticing visions
described in Embraced by the Light, the bestseller by Betty Eadie,
who blended her Mormon faith with her Native American spiritual
heritage. Like Anne Emmerich and several Native American “medicine”
men, Betty Eadie’s visions began early in life.
(For more details see
Deliver us from Evil)
Ponder these excerpts:

“Anne
Catherine Emmerich was born on the feast of the Virgin’s own
nativity: September 8, 1774…. Her visions began early
in life…. She claimed to see her guardian angel on a nearly
constant basis…. Jesus Himself conducted her through many
visions….

    
“She never entered the church without her angel-guardian who
taught her by his own example the homage due to the Eucharistic
God.’

    
“We could slough this all off — attribute it to a meandering
mind of an overly zealous nun — if it wasn’t… for the
prominence of those who endorsed her. The Bishop of Limbourg
approved of her work. So did canons and abbots. Famous Catholics
of the day like Abbot Dom Gueranger and the Very Reverend F.
Windischmann of Munich spoke about Emmerich in the highest
terms….
    
“The stigmata itself was incredible…. The wounds, up to half
an inch in size, were in her hands, feet, side, and head….
Said one physician, ‘…The wounds speak for themselves, at
least to a man of science. To ascribe them to natural causes
such as imagination, induction, analogy, or similar causes, is
simply impossible.’ That physician was a Protestant — just as
we now see many Protestants backing the Gibson film.”[1]

Emphasis added

You met Peter Boyer earlier. In his article (which, I should warn you, contains
a quote with an obscene word), he wrote,

Keep in mind,

6. How great an evangelistic tool is Mel Gibson’s Passion?
This may be the most important question of all. Does The Passion
really communicate the gospel to a postmodern, biblically
illiterate population? Many churches are counting on it to do just
that. And the people they target — many of whom are driven by a
steady diet of MTV and gratuitous violence — may be more
emotionally prepared for the intense violence than many Christians,
especially children. But will they hear the gospel?

“You
cannot watch this film without being affected,” writes
Tim Timmons

in his article “The
movie is great, but not the gospel.“
“In my opinion, it is, indeed, a great movie! But to say or promote it as the greatest evangelistic tool—the greatest gospel message—in the last century or in the last 2000 years is a bit strong and very misleading.”
He goes on to say,

”When you’re excited about something, there is always a tendency to oversell…. The Christian church seems to be lovers of the latest and greatest methodologies—especially when it comes to evangelism. Revival meetings and evangelistic crusades, books and booklets, radio and TV shows or an evangelistic system of training all promise to be easy, sure-fire methods of evangelism that will reach your neighbor. Now we have a movie!

    
“The New Testament doesn’t include any of these methods as the divine or most effective ways of reaching your neighbor. To overemphasize a method is to short-circuit what is really required for effectively introducing your neighbor to Jesus.”[14]

(from the ABC interview with Diane Sawyer, February 16 and 17, 2004)

Romans 10:14-17

“Five Reasons Not to Go See
The Passion of Christ

“[S]hould Evangelicals be supporting The Passion of Christ and
endorsing its use as an Evangelism tool? Is this really the best
evangelization opportunity we’ve had since the actual death of
Jesus?
“1) Its Origins: Even though Evangelicals are promoting The
Passion of Christ, it is not an Evangelical movie. As Mel
Gibson, a devout Roman Catholic put it so well; ‘It reflects my
beliefs.’ The Passion of Christ is a Roman Catholic movie, made
by a Roman Catholic director, with Roman Catholic theological
advisers….
    
“Caviezel [played Jesus] recalled telling Gibson, ‘I think it’s very important
that we have mass every day – at least I need that to play this
guy.'”[6] 

“2) Its Script: The script for The Passion of Christ
contains much extrabiblical material, and is based in part on a
mystical Roman Catholic devotional work by an 18th century
German Nun (Sister Anne Emmerich) entitled The Dolorous Passion
of Christ. Gibson stated on EWTN that reading Emmerich’s book
was his primary inspiration for making the movie. By introducing
extra-biblical elements, not only does The Passion of Christ
change some of the theological emphases of the Biblical account
of Christ’s crucifixion, but it will also create a false
impression amongst the very ‘seekers’ that Evangelicals are
trying to reach, that things were said and done at the
crucifixion that did not actually happen.

     “For Evangelicals, who
would feel very uncomfortable with a version of the Bible that
put words into the mouth of Christ that He never spoke, to
endorse a movie that does the very same thing seems hopelessly
inconsistent. Protestants traditionally rejected the Apocrypha
precisely because these books were fabricated and contained
inauthentic material, despite the fact that these books might
have been useful for evangelism. For modern evangelicals to
embrace a vehicle that is inauthentic in order to achieve
evangelistic ends indicates a serious decline in faithfulness.

     “The script for The Passion of Christ was translated into Aramaic
and Latin by Father William Fulco, an old friend of Mel
Gibson’s. This was not done for reasons of making it more
authentic. The language decisions in The Passion of Christ were
made for theological reasons: ‘It is crucial to realize that the images and language at the
heart of ‘The Passion of the Christ’ flow directly out of
Gibson’s personal dedication to Catholicism in one of its most
traditional and mysterious forms – the 16th-century Latin Mass.
…
     “‘The goal of the movie is to shake
modern audiences by brashly juxtaposing the ‘sacrifice of the cross
with the sacrifice of the altar – which is the same thing,’ said
Gibson. This ancient union of symbols and sounds has never lost its
hold on him. There is, he stressed, ‘a lot of power in these dead
languages.’…
     “The script of The
Passion of Christ was specifically intended to link the
crucifixion of Christ with what Roman Catholics believe is the
re-sacrificing of Christ that occurs in the mass.”

Emphasis added
 

“3) Its Theology: The fact that Evangelicals have uncritically endorsed it
speaks volumes about how far the Evangelical Protestant
understanding of Christ’s death and the related subject of
Justification have slipped since the Reformation. In Roman
Catholic theology the intense physical suffering of Christ’s
Crucifixion is the focus along with the emphasis on physical
sacrifice….

     
“The theology of the bible
however points out to us that the grand importance of Christ’s
crucifixion lay not in His physical suffering, but in His once
for all propitiation of God’s wrath (1 John 4:10). Lest we
forget, the greatest torment that Christ experienced on the
cross was not caused by the nails driven into His flesh, but in
His being made ‘sin for us’ and vicariously suffering the
righteous punishment of the Father in our place. Even the worst
physical torments inflicted by the Sanhedrin and the Romans upon
Jesus were nothing by comparison to the anguish of having the
sins of all the elect imputed to Him and making full
satisfaction for them. Satisfying the justice of the Romans on a
cross was comparatively easy, thousands of condemned men and
women including Spartacus and several of the Apostles did that,
but only Christ could satisfy the justice of God.
     
“Also central to the Christian Gospel, but missing from The Passion
of Christ, is the concept of Christ’s active obedience. Christ not
only died for the sins of His sheep on the cross but He established
their righteousness through His perfect obedience to God’s Law….
     
“…use of extra-biblical material, emphasis on physical suffering,
exaggeration of the role of Mary, and explicitly Roman Catholic
theology should not surprise us, however, as these are all hallmarks
of the primary inspiration for this movie: The Dolorous Passion of
Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
 

“4) Its Medium: Many Evangelical Pastors are hailing movies like
The Passion of Christ as part of a new and better way of
spreading the Gospel:
     “…’Churches used to communicate by having a little lecture time on
Sunday morning. People don’t interact that way anymore. Here’s a
chance for us to use a modern-day technique to communicate the
truth of the Bible,” the Rev. Engel said.”12
    
“It is indeed true that we live in a highly visual and increasingly
anti-literate society that places a premium on sound bites and
easily assimilated visual imagery, but does this mean that we should
abandon preaching in favor of using movies or dramatic
presentations? …

    
“The means that God has
ordained for the transmission of the Gospel, was neither drama,
imagery, nor even “lectures” – it is preaching. Preaching involves
the communication of the Gospel in a way that patiently convinces,
rebukes, exhorts, and teaches (2 Timothy 4:2-4). The bible teaches
us the awesome importance of preaching and why it cannot be replaced
by another medium….
     “God does
not command us to produce dramatic presentations of Gospel themes,
He commands us to preach. Though this option was
freely available to the Apostles as they brought the Gospel to
cities with amphitheaters and a long tradition of using the
dramatic arts to convey religious and moral themes to the
populace they did not do so. The wisdom of the Apostolic
methodology has been borne out by the fact that it was when the
Gospel was being transmitted primarily by plays and symbolism
that true Christianity began to sink under the weight of
superstition. We are in danger of returning to precisely that
state of affairs by reviving the teaching methodology of the
medieval church. Even though it was produced in the 21st
century, The Passion of Christ is identical in all critical
aspects to the Passion Plays of the Roman Catholic Church in the
Middle Ages.”

“5) Its Main Character: Billy Graham in his endorsement of
The
Passion of Christ said, ‘Every time I preach or speak about the
Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and
mind.’ This is unfortunately part of the problem with all
visual representations of Jesus. Although we may intend for them
only to have a role in teaching, they inevitably become part of
our worship and adoration. As a result of seeing this film James Caviezel, the “Jesus” of The Passion of Christ, will become the
figure countless thousands if not millions of people think of
when they worship Jesus Christ. To do this is to fall into the
trap of changing “the glory of the incorruptible God into an
image made like corruptible man” (Romans 1:23) and to violate
the Second Commandment.
     “The Second reason why all visual representations of Jesus are
lies is that they can never hope to represent the glory of
Christ in His true nature…. While this may not
appear to be a problem to us, the separation of Christ’s manhood
from His deity is actually a grave heresy called Nestorianism.
…
     “For the first four centuries of its
existence the church did not use pictures of Jesus as an aid to
evangelism. This was despite the fact that they were bringing the
gospel to highly visual cultures that had always used imagery to
convey religious ideas. The initial movements towards making
pictures of Christ were initially strongly opposed, and the practice
was formally condemned by the church as late as 753 AD.
Unfortunately, once they had taken hold of the public imagination,
the practice of making visible representations of Christ proved
difficult if not impossible to eradicate and gradually, pictures and
dramatic representations of Jesus became quite commonplace in the
church. At the time of the Reformation, Protestants overwhelmingly
rejected the practice of making images of Jesus as a clear violation
of the Second Commandment.”[6]

You can contact Pastor
Webb at info@providencepca.com

“Why I Will Not See
‘The Passion of the Christ‘”
by John LeGare
[15]

 “In a New Yorker article entitled “The
Jesus War,” Gibson disclosed to the interviewer his fondness for an Augustinian nun named Anne Catherine Emmerich, described by a web site dedicated to her as a Mystic, Stigmatist, Prophet and Great Visionary. Her visions were recorded in a book before she died in 1924 called The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Here is the account from the
New Yorker piece:

“When Gibson returned to his faith, he acquired, from a nunnery that had closed down a library of hundreds of books… He says that when he was researching
‘The Passion’ one evening he reached up for a book, and Brentano’s volume tumbled out of the shelf into his hands. He sat down to read it, and was flabbergasted by the vivid imagery of Emmerich’s visions. ‘Amazing images,’ he said ` ‘She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of.’

     
“The one image that is most noticeable in ‘The Passion’ is a scene after Jesus’ scourging, when a grief-stricken Mary gets down on her knees to mop up his blood.’…

“I
don’t know if that scene or others of Emmerich’s ‘amazing images’
have made the final cut but it is not true that the Bible was
Gibson’s sole source. The book can be found online at
www.emmerich1.com. I did not
read the entire book but here are two quotes…:

“Her angel-guardian used to appear to her as a child; and when she was taking care of sheep in the fields, the Good Shepherd himself, under the form of a young shepherd, would frequently come to her assistance. From childhood she was accustomed to have divine knowledge imparted to her in visions of all kinds, and was often
favored by visits from the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, who, under the form of a sweet lovely, and majestic lady, would bring the Divine Child to be, as it were, her companion, and would assure her that she loved and would ever protect her.”

 

“Whoever compares the following meditations with the short history of the Last Supper given in the Gospel will discover some slight differences between them. An explanation should be given of this, although it can never be sufficiently impressed upon the reader that these writing have no pretensions whatever to add an iota to Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the [Roman Catholic] Church.”

Gibson depended on
another person and book in the making of his soon to be released
movie. That is, Mary of Agreda’s The Mystical City of God. You can
read about her at