COMMENTS ON THE PASSION
		A DIFFERENT REACTION TO THE PASSION (The following article was written by Pastor Russ Boone after having seen The Passion of the Christ and having read the article entitled, A Masterpiece of Love, in the March 2004 issue of the Baptist Bulletin.) Not too long ago, I went to see the movie The Passion of the Christ.  At the end of the film as the credits rolled, there was a stillness as everyone stopped to consider what they had just seen.  Then all at once the crowd began to applaud.  I, for one, did not applaud.  I suppose my reaction was different from many other people in the theatre that evening.  My reaction can best be summed up in one word--betrayal.  I felt betrayed.  Along with that deep feeling of betrayal came frustration and anger. Like so many other pastors, I received all the advertisements for promotional material for The Passion.  Various statements from respected Evangelical leaders assured me that the film was biblically accurate.  Some of these statements are as follows: “A beautiful, wonderful account of the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ.  It is consistent with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.”  (Ted Haggard, President, National Association of Evangelicals; quoted in Outreach magazine, Spring 2004 issue, p. 9.) “The Passion of the Christ will stun audiences and create an incredible appetite for people to know more about Jesus.  I urge Christians to invite their spiritually-seeking friends to see this movie with them.”  (Lee Strobel, author of “The Case for Christ” and “The Case for Faith”; quoted in Outreach magazine, Spring 2004 issue, p. 9.) “I believe The Passion of the Christ may well be one of the most powerful evangelistic tools of the last 100 years, because you have never seen the story of Jesus portrayed this vividly before.”   (Greg Laurie, founder of Harvest Crusades; quoted in Outreach magazine, Spring 2004 issue, p. 9.) “I found it deeply moving, factually accurate and unprejudiced in its presentation.”   (Jack W. Hayford, Chancellor, The King’s Seminary; quoted in Outreach magazine, Spring 2004 issue, p. 9.) “...it is a film we will heartily recommend to our constituents.”  (Donald Hodel, President and CEO, Focus on the Family; quoted in Outreach magazine, Spring 2004 issue, p. 9.) With endorsements like these from well-known Evangelical leaders, you would expect the movie to be consistent with the Word of God.  I found it to be very inconsistent with the truth of Scripture.  For this reason, I felt and still feel betrayed. It was inconsistent with Scripture in that it portrayed a weak ‘Jesus’.  I noticed that John 18: 6 was conspicuously absent from the movie.  When the actor portraying Jesus answered “I am he” in the garden, the soldiers did not fall over backwards.  This biblical event is important because it shows that Jesus was not overpowered and taken against His will.   Instead He went willingly to the cross.  Omitting this part of the Gospel account takes away a clear reference to Jesus’ divine power which was always present in spite of the weakness of His human body.  Also, Luke 23:28-31 was missing from the script.  In this text Jesus is walking to Calvary.  He turns to the mourners and tells them to stop weeping for Him.  He goes on to predict a time of trouble they would face.  On the screen as Caviesel played ‘Jesus’, he seemed almost too weak and incoherent to say much of anything, yet the Bible shows us a Christ who’s mind is clear enough to give a warning and tell a parable to the onlookers.  I must ask myself, why Mel Gibson chose to omit these important parts of the Gospel accounts?  Surely an experienced actor/director such as he had distinct reasons for omitting these important facts of the passion.  I deduce that using artistic license he omitted these verses in order to over-emphasize the weakness of Jesus. It was inconsistent with Scripture in that it portrayed a strong ‘Mary’.  Gibson’s Catholicism certainly affected the way that he wanted to portray ‘Mary’.  He made ‘Mary’ an integral part of the story, while the four Gospels only tell us in one place that Mary was even present at the crucifixion.  Only in John 19:25-27 can be found verses in the Gospel passion accounts that speak about Mary.  What about all the scenes that depict ‘Mary’ in the movie?  Some would call it artistic license, though I would call it sheer imagination.  When ‘Jesus’ is taken in the garden, ‘Mary’ in a house with ‘Mary Magdalene’ is seen having some other-worldly sense of distress.  Somehow she knows that ‘Jesus’ has just been arrested.  Was it telepathic powers or omniscience?  In another scene ‘Mary’ receives some linen from the ‘wife of Pilate’.  She then uses the same linen to wipe up the blood that had splattered the ground during the scourging.  Where is this in Scripture?  In another scene ‘Mary’ speaks words of comfort to help strengthen ‘Jesus’ as he carries the cross.  Again we see a weak ‘Jesus’ and strong ‘Mary’ portrayed.  In the true account, Jesus did not need the assistance of Mary to help Him finish His work of redemption.  If anything, Mary needed Jesus strengthening to help her deal with the sorrow she was going through.  In another scene ‘Mary’ makes eye contact with the ‘Satan’ character.  Nobody else can see ‘Satan’ except ‘Jesus’ and ‘Mary’.  Evidently according to Gibson she has this other-worldly sense that no other human being has.  In one other scene ‘Mary’ goes up to ‘Jesus’ as he is hanging on the cross and kisses his feet getting blood all over her mouth.  One wonders if there is not some subtle reference to transubstantiation in this.  Certainly, this is not the action of a loving mother, but the strange action of an emotionally unstable woman.  I will not take the time to mention in depth the extra-biblical flashback scene where ‘Mary’ runs to help support her falling son.  I hope no one will argue that these scenes of ‘Mary’ can be found anywhere in Scripture.  At best these scenes must be considered artistic license.  I admit that it is artistic license--from a man desiring to portray a Roman Catholic view of the passion. It was inconsistent with Scripture in that it portrayed a bizarre view of Satan and demons.   ‘Satan’ was played by a woman.  One time this character (not sure whether to say ‘she’, ‘he’, or ‘it’) had a maggot coming out of ‘her’ nose.  After betraying ‘Jesus’, ‘Judas’ was tormented by demon-children.  Two children approached him and suddenly turned into demon creatures that started biting him.  Later ‘Judas’ was chased by a mob of hideous demon-like children.  According to Gibson’s artistic license, they pushed him to suicide.  In another eerie moment, the ‘Satan’ character is seen holding a demon-baby.  This is supposed to be an artistic parody of ‘Satan’ mocking the Madonna & child.  Where is any of this in the Bible?  This sounds more akin to Dante than to Scripture. Clearly these scenes from the film would prove to us that there is much here that is inconsistent with Scripture, whether in the form of omission or addition.  One might wonder from where Gibson derived this extra-biblical material.  Did he make it up himself or borrow it from somewhere else?  Gibson in interviews has clearly revealed his source.  Other than the four Gospels, a book entitled The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, is the primary source.  This book was written by a Roman Catholic, mystic nun from the 18th century, named Anne Catherine Emmerich.  She supposedly had visions about the events of the passion.  These visions filled in the details not covered by the Gospel writers.  In using this book as a primary source, Mel Gibson is just being consistent with his personal beliefs.  He is holds to pre-Vatican II, Roman Catholic beliefs.  It is no accident that his production company is called Icon Productions.  It is clear that Gibson’s intent was to produce a movie that would portray a Roman Catholic view of the passion--a video icon.   He has succeeded. The Evangelical leaders I alluded to earlier all previewed the movie before making their statements.  Did they see the same movie I saw?  How could they say that it is “accurate and unprejudiced”?  How could they give blanket endorsements for a Catholic movie?  I feel betrayed.  Either they missed the blatant Romanism, or for some reason they purposely overlooked it.  Though I feel betrayed, I am concerned that there is one who has been even more betrayed.  Mel Gibson is trying to find salvation in a false system of works- righteousness.  The mass and Mary will never save.  I wonder how many of the Evangelical leaders have told him this?