1. I don't think we should use this as a battleground for Protestants and Catholics, but rather should be used to bring more unity to the conversation. What is wrong with an accurate reflection of a story in the New Testament? Whether or not the senile pope likes it is irrelevant. Whether or not the pope liked any other Jesus movie or supported it is irrelevant. If it induces people to convert to Catholicism or any other form of Christianity, its purpose is served. Remember, if somebody converts to Catholicism after watching a movie, or hearing a sermon, it is because they want Jesus in their life. That can't be a bad thing.

Also on this note, Gibson and his family are traditionalist Catholics that break with the current catholic church since its 1960's liberalization.

2. I've read articles about this from newspapers all over the country, and there is no evidence that elements were added to the script that were not scriptural. The line about "his blood be on us..." was not actually deleted, it still remains, but rather the subtitle was deleted to appease some of the many "anti-semite" crybabies that have been crying out at the top of their lungs ever since they heard that the movie was being made. In fact, there is so much outcry from the usual anti-Christian suspects, that I have to believe the movie is right on. Whatever Mel's desire to compare the crucifixion with is probably irrelevant also, unless he subs in scenes of Catholics holding mass while Jesus is being crucified, which I haven't heard any reports of.

The movie script was in Aramaic because it was the most likely language of the time spoken by Jesus and his apostles. It is intended to be as realistic as possible a representation of their conversations. The words of the characters, heard as they were actually said, rather than an interpretation thereof.

3. The movie focuses on the Passion of Christ, i.e. the crucifixion, and not much else. That is its point, to get a more in depth look of the last 12 hours that you can't do with a 15 minute bit in a typical Jesus movie. This format doesn’t give us time to go thru Jesus' entire life. I would prefer that the movie cover some of the arisen Christ as well, but that's not its emphasis. I currently don't see anything non-Christian about the script. The reference to a mother trying to help her son does not appear to be anti-biblical or anti-Christian in any way. I'm sure that Mary helped Jesus many times while he was growing up, as any mother would.

4. By your logic, any movie or visual representation of anything Christian should never be shown. That's somewhat hypocritical. We all know that preaching is the primary way to get the message across, but there's nothing wrong with using movies as a supplement, not a substitute. Do you think people are more likely to obey a billboard or radio ad that says, "Go to your local church and listen to a sermon," or go to a movie? I think disparaging any supplemental teaching aids is very dangerous. Many unsaved people in America can only be reached by movies, TV, or radio. They will never volunteer to go into a church. Perhaps watching a movie like this will raise a question in their minds, about who Christ is and why He did all this.

Also, would you ban Sunday School also, since it is not preaching. Should we not sing songs of praise? Should we not have Christian get-togethers like dinners or outings, that may reach out to people that are not Christian? There's nothing about a ski trip mentioned in the Bible either. Nor do the apostles mention radio ads or TV prayer programs. But I think we need to look at what the effectiveness might be of any of these mediums, and use them accordingly.

5. Would not the son of God be a beautiful man? If God initially created us in His image, wouldn't he create his Son in His perfect beauty and Glory? Most likely he would have been tall too. A well built Jesus would be in keeping with a carpenter, son of a carpenter. The reason Jesus is always portrayed as tall and handsome, is because that is our idea of what a beautiful man looks like. The Son of God had to be a beautiful human, there's no doubt about that. You can worship some short fat bald version if you wish, but that defies logic.

No, we can not hope to recreate the glory of Christ with an actor of our own, but the idea is to try our best. Otherwise, you have no movie. I do not think that a movie character is a creation of idolatry. The movie is intended as a representation of actions, not for us to worship these actors. I doubt if anybody will worship Jim Caviezel after this film, but if they do, then these people are no further lost than they were to begin with.

The problem I have with your analysis is that, while the purpose of evangelism is to reach out to people in any way possible, you would like to take away a method of doing this. Many people will never think about going to a church, or about what Jesus sacrifice might mean to them. Most Americans prefer to get brainwashed by mainstream media, i.e. TV or movies, as their way of life. Movies or TV may be the only way to reach these people. If you don't want to reach them, if you prefer to have them brainwashed only with Hollywood's version of morality, which is to say, immorality, then by all means do not endorse movies with Christian morality portrayed. I think we're better off reaching these people in their preferred medium.

> > Five Reasons Not to Go See The Passion of Christ

> > By Andrew J. Webb

> >

> > On February 25, 2004 Icon films, will be releasing Mel Gibson's much

> > anticipated film The Passion of Christ. The date of the release was

> > deliberately chosen to coincide with the Roman Catholic holy day of

> > Ash Wednesday, and is indicative of the fact that for Gibson, his

> > film was more of a work of devotion than a money making enterprise.

> > In an interview on the Roman Catholic Television Network EWTN,

> > Gibson candidly stated why this movie is so different from all his

> > others, "It reflects my beliefs-I've never done that before."1 He is

> > also quite open about his desire to see his movie used for worldwide

> > evangelism. Many noted Evangelicals including James Dobson and Billy

> > Graham have also come forward to endorse The Passion of Christ and

> > recommend its use as a teaching tool. Currently, The Passion of

> > Christ is riding a groundswell of nationwide support from both

> > Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, with many well-known Evangelical

> > congregations, such as best selling author and Pastor Rick Warren's

> > Saddleback Church which purchased 18,000 tickets at seven theatres,

> > doing everything they can to ensure that The Passion of Christ will

> > be a smash hit amongst Christians and "seekers". Expressing a widely

> > held view amongst the film's supporters, Lisa Wheeler, associate

> > editor of Catholic Exchange, a Web portal dedicated to Catholic

> > evangelism, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "It's the best

> > evangelization opportunity we've had since the actual death of

> > Jesus."2

> >

> > But should 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?3 After careful consideration my conclusion is an unequivocal

> > "No." Here then are five reasons why I believe Evangelicals should

> > not see or recommend the Passion of Christ.

> >

> > 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, which gained the

> > endorsement of Pope John Paul II who said after viewing it, "It is

> > as it was."4 This is in marked contrast to the Jesus film, which is

> > unabashedly Protestant and Evangelical in its production and message

> > and which has been widely used in evangelizing Roman Catholics. It

> > is largely for this reason that the Jesus film has not been utilized

> > or endorsed by Roman Catholics. By contrast, The Passion of Christ

> > has already proven its effectiveness as an evangelism tool in

> > producing Catholic conversions and encouraging Catholic devotion:

> >

> > "In his first nationally broadcast interview about his starring role

> > in Mel Gibson's much-anticipated film "The Passion of Christ," James

> > Caviezel - Gibson's Jesus - detailed on Friday the ordeal of filming

> > the Crucifixion scenes, noting that the overall experience prompted

> > many in the crew to convert to Catholicism." ...

> > "Noting "the amount of conversions on the movie," he said the

> > experience of filming Christ's story "really changed people's lives."

> > "Caviezel recalled telling Gibson, "I think it's very important that

> > we have mass every day - at least I need that to play this guy."

> > "I felt if I was going to play him I needed [the sacrament] in me. So

> > [Gibson] provided that."5

> >

> > 2) Its Script: Although it is widely thought that the script for the

> > movie is based entirely on the gospel according to John, this is not

> > the case. 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 extrabiblical 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 not only adds things that

> > didn't occur in the Bible, it cuts out other things that did. The

> > most widely known example of this is the important declaration, "His

> > blood be on us and on our children." (Matthew 27:25)

> >

> > 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.6 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.

> >

> > "I don't go to any other services," the director 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. Now,

> > initially, I didn't understand the Latin. ... But I understood the

> > meaning and the message and what they were doing. I understood it

> > very fully and it was very moving and emotional and efficacious, if

> > I may say so."

> >

> > 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." 7

> >

> > 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. Gibson's

> > intent is to show us that the sacrifice of the cross and the

> > sacrifice of the altar (the mass) are the same thing. Protestant

> > Evangelicals have historically rejected the idea that Christ can be

> > sacrificed again and declared it "abominable." Speaking of the

> > concept that the Crucifixion and the mass is the same thing, the

> > Protestant Westminster Confession declares:

> >

> > "In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any

> > real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or

> > dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself,

> > by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation

> > of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish

> > sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious

> > to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the

> > sins of his elect."8

> >

> > 3) Its Theology: Gibson's comment about the sacrifice of the altar

> > and the sacrifice of the cross shows the indispensable link in this

> > movie between the Catholic view of Christ's sacrifice and the

> > portrayal of the Crucifixion in The Passion of Christ. 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. This is one of the reasons why in

> > Roman Catholic iconography we have so much imagery related to

> > Christ's physical pain and that crucifixes show him still suffering

> > on the cross (the sacrifice of the mass means that Christ's

> > declaration that His once for all sacrifice is completed - "it is

> > finished" (John 19:30), never actually comes, and that His suffering

> > has to be constantly repeated). This emphasis on Christ's physical

> > agony is repeated in Roman Catholic devotional material, prayers,

> > and of course the Passion of Christ. 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. It

> > is only if His passive obedience in dying on the cross and His

> > active obedience in keeping the law are imputed to believers per 2

> > Cor. 5:21 that believers will be justified before almighty God. The

> > Passion of Christ does not even make any pretence of teaching the

> > active obedience of Christ, the entire notion of which is alien to

> > Roman Catholic theology. Therefore if Evangelicals intend to use

> > this as a Gospel teaching tool, they must understand that at best

> > they are teaching only half a gospel, and that the half they are

> > teaching is defectively presented.

> >

> > The sacrifice of Christ was a glorious event in which, in accordance

> > with God's plan, full satisfaction for sin was procured by Christ on

> > behalf of His people (Acts 2:43). The Passion of Christ leaves us

> > with a vision of the sacrifice of Christ that is only dolorous

> > (Dolorous: Full of grief; sad; sorrowful; doleful; dismal) and which

> > puts into sharp relief the Roman Catholic notion not only of the

> > importance of Christ's agony, but that of Mary in "offering her

> > Son." In an interview with Zenit, the Roman Catholic News Service,

> > Father Thomas Rosica, the priest who oversaw World Youth Day 2002

> > and its Way of the Cross through the streets of Toronto, illustrated

> > how The Passion of Christ, in keeping with Roman Catholic theology,

> > uses extrabiblical content to massively exaggerate the role of Mary:

> >

> > "One scene, in particular, was very moving. As Jesus falls on the

> > Way of the Cross, there is a flashback to his falling on a Jerusalem

> > street as a child, and his mother running out of the house to pick

> > him up. The interplay of Mary and Jesus in this film is moving, and

> > reaches its apex in the scene of the Pietà.

> >

> > The Mother of the Lord is inviting each of us to share her grief and

> > behold her Son."9

> >

> > This 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. Let me give two examples of what I mean

> > especially as concerns the replacement of physical pain for the far

> > greater agony of sin bearing:

> >

> > "He will not stretch himself out, but we will help him;' they

> > accompanied these words with the most fearful oaths and

> > imprecations, and having fastened a rope to his right leg, dragged

> > it violently until it reached the wood, and then tied it down as

> > tightly as possible. The agony which Jesus suffered from this

> > violent tension was indescribable; the words 'My God, my God,'

> > escaped his lips, and the executioners increased his pain by tying

> > his chest and arms to the cross, lest the hands should be torn from

> > the nails."10 ... "The hour of our Lord was at last come; his

> > death-struggle had commenced; a cold sweat overspread every limb.

> > John stood at the foot of the Cross, and wiped the feet of Jesus

> > with his scapular. Magdalen was crouched to the ground in a perfect

> > frenzy of grief behind the Cross. The Blessed Virgin stood between

> > Jesus and the good thief, supported by Salome and Mary of Cleophas,

> > with her eyes riveted on the countenance of her dying Son. Jesus

> > then said: 'It is consummated;' and, raising his head, cried out in

> > a loud voice, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.' These

> > words, which he uttered in a clear and thrilling tone, resounded

> > through heaven and earth; and a moment after, he bowed down his head

> > and gave up the ghost. I saw his soul, under the appearance of a

> > bright meteor, penetrate the earth at the foot of the Cross. John

> > and the holy women fell prostrate on the ground."11

> >

> > Emmerich's book is literally filled with scenes like those above,

> > and includes many extra-biblical sayings of Jesus which Sister Anne

> > says she personally heard in her visions.

> >

> > 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:

> >

> > "This is a window of opportunity we have. Here's a guy who's putting

> > his money into a movie that has everything to do with what we do,"

> > said pastor Cory Engel of Harvest Springs Community Church in Great

> > Falls, Mont.

> >

> > "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? 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 middle-ages 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. 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:

> >

> > We must preach God's Word regardless of how unpopular it is because

> > we are commanded to do so: "Preach the word! Be ready in season and

> > out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and

> > teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound

> > doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have

> > itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they

> > will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to

> > fables." (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

> >

> > We must preach God's Word because it always accomplishes the purpose

> > for which it was sent: "For as the heavens are higher than the

> > earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than

> > your thoughts. For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,

> > And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring

> > forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the

> > eater, So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall

> > not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it

> > shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it." (Isa.55:9-11)

> >

> > 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."13 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.

> >

> > Every visual representation of Jesus is inevitably a lie. There are

> > two main reasons for this.

> >

> > The first reason why all visual representations of Jesus are lies is

> > because the only wise God went to great lengths not to leave us with

> > any description of the physical appearance of His Son lest we fall

> > into the sin of image making. Therefore all of our representations

> > of Jesus are inevitably speculations usually based upon our own

> > desires. We create an image of Jesus that says more about the Jesus

> > we want than the Jesus whom God sent.

> >

> > For instance, isn't it remarkable that the Jesus of The Passion of

> > Christ, as in almost all physical representations of Christ, is

> > tall, slim, and handsome? Why should not The Son of David (Luke

> > 18:38) have been a relatively small man like His great ancestor? It

> > never seems to have occurred to most image-makers that Jesus could

> > be relatively short, or stout, or even have had a receding hairline.

> > This is in spite of the fact that one of the few details the Bible

> > does give us about Christ's appearance is that "He has no form or

> > comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should

> > desire Him." (Is.

> > 53:2b) The fact that we have any concept of what Jesus looks like and

> > that Gibson's Jesus looks like the traditional Jesus, is a testament

> > to the abiding impact of past iconography. While the Gospels,

> > purposely leave out any description of Jesus that we might use to

> > construct an idol, people have created an image of Jesus that has

> > become almost an industry standard, and it is solely for that reason

> > rather than any basis in fact that audiences would have been outraged

> > had Gibson cast Danny DeVito and not James Caviezel in the leading

> > role.

> >

> > 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. The best an image of Jesus can do is to represent him

> > as a man, and while Jesus was truly a man, He was not merely a man.

> > Jesus was also God, and no artist or filmmaker who has ever lived

> > could hope to create an image that captures the true Glory of Jesus

> > as God. 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. We must not therefore attempt to

> > separate what God has forever joined together.

> >

> > 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. They also

> > rejected the notion that such images had a necessary role as

> > "textbooks for the laity" and then proved that notion false by

> > producing generations of other Protestants well versed in the word

> > and familiar with their Savior although they had never once owned or

> > seen a representation of him.

> >

> > Rather than visual imagery, they relied on the preaching of the Word

> > to save souls, and the gospel made great advances. If we return to

> > the use of imagery and begin endorsing movies like The Passion of

> > Christ, we will be returning to the very state of affairs the first

> > Protestants struggled and died to reform. We must not think that

> > merely endorsing one form of visible representation of Christ will

> > not lead inevitably to others. For instance, it is impossible to

> > make a coherent argument against the use of the crucifix in teaching

> > the Gospel if we have already endorsed the use of a movie that

> > portrays the crucifixion. Merely because one display is static and

> > the other moving does not change their essential nature at all. The

> > Passion of Christ is in essence, an animated Crucifix.

> >

> > In closing, let me address a common objection, namely that we must

> > use tools like The Passion of Christ in order to reach the lost and

> > that if we don't we are "missing a great opportunity."

> >

> > Are we really missing an opportunity though? If we are convinced

> > that using a Roman Catholic movie to present the Gospel is in

> > essence a violation of God's law, how could we possibly use it?

> > Should we sin that grace may abound?

> >

> > Also, are we really certain that this will be as effective as we

> > think in saving souls? J. Marcellus Kik in his Pictures of Christ

> > addressed that very question and gave us some wise advice, which I

> > think all Christians would do well to heed:

> >

> > "But can it not help in the saving of souls, it is asked. But how?

> > Looking at a picture of Christ hanging upon the cross tells me

> > nothing. It does not tell me that He hung there for sin. It does not

> > tell me that He hung there for my sin. It does not tell me that He

> > is the Son of God. Only the Word of God does that. And it is the

> > Word of God that has been given us to tell the story of salvation

> > through the blood of Christ. It is not through the foolishness of

> > pictures that sinners are converted but through the foolishness of

> > preaching.

> >

> > It is amazing how slowly unscriptural practices enter the Christian

> > Church. We must at all times go back to the Scriptures. The Bible is

> > our infallible guide. And if our practices and doctrines do not

> > conform with the teachings of the Scriptures then we must eliminate

> > them. The Bible instructs the Church not to make any likeness of

> > Christ. The present day pictures of Christ are false and no one

> > would make a serious claim that they resemble Christ upon earth.

> > They separate His humanity from His deity. They do not at all give

> > us a glimpse of His present glory. They are not condoned by the

> > inspired apostles.

> >

> > God has ordained the foolishness of preaching to evangelize the

> > world. He has promised to attend the preaching of the Word with the

> > power of the Holy Spirit. The so-called pictures of Christ are a

> > hindrance and a temptation to idolatry. Let us cleanse the Temple of

> > God from them."14

> >

> > Perhaps The Passion of Christ will provide Evangelicals with a great

> > opportunity after all. They are being given a rare opportunity to

> > reject the world's methods and to recommit themselves to fulfilling

> > God's commission to preach the Gospel and to trust that that

> > preaching will always accomplish what He pleases. Let us hope that

> > they will seize it.