Infinite MonkeysIn my previous post, just below, I referenced a letter by Arden Hodgins, Pastor of Port Cities Reformed Baptist Church, Lewiston, Idaho. This post contains only this introduction and the letter's text.
Upon replying to my request for permission to post his letter, Pastor Hodgins wrote, "Go ahead and use whatever you want."
Dear Brothers and Sisters of Port Cities Church,
I have struggled long and hard in prayer as to whether to address this issue or not, but I feel I must. The pastor is to be a shepherd, and that means guarding and warning the flock as well as feeding the flock. This letter is a warning - a word of caution to all of us. It regards the upcoming movie (to be released this Wednesday) called 'The Passion of the Christ.' There has been much excitement among Catholics and evangelicals alike in eager anticipation of this movie which, from all credible accounts, is more accurate than any other 'Jesus film' ever made. There have been those who have already seen this movie and have reported being greatly moved by it. It has been touted as a 'life-changing' film. And I do not doubt that God in His mysterious providence will use this film in the lives of some. That alone, by the way, is not a good enough reason to see the movie, because our rule is God's Word, not God's Providence. That is, God can use even the sinful acts of men to bring about good - should we then sin that grace may abound? Of course not! We ought to make principled decisions based on Godís Word, not pragmatic decisions based on 'how things turn out' or 'how useful they may prove to be'.
Now I will admit, I feel a strange pull toward this movie. And I can admire and commend the zeal of Mel Gibson and others who seem to have a desire to make Christ known. I am tempted to watch it. But I have determined to resist this temptation. I will not tell you what to do - you must weigh these things against the truth of Scripture and act accordingly. But I believe that it is at least my duty to caution you with respect to this film. And not just with respect to this film - but to the underlying issue of attempting to depict Christ in the form of images, likenesses, paintings, or dramatizations. I could not, in good conscience, go on without saying something to you by way of warning.
I do not wish to rain on anyone's parade or be a 'stick in the mud', and there are a host of issues that I choose to remain silent on, because of their 'peripheral' nature. But this issue is not 'peripheral' in my mind - it strikes at the heart of true Christianity. Let me share with you two main reasons why I will be resisting the temptation to see Mel Gibson's movie.
1. Because of the divine precept it breaks - it breaks the second commandment (Ex. 20:4-6).
For some reason so many Christians today do not take seriously the second commandment with respect to images of Christ. The second commandment forbids the bowing down to images of deity, but it also forbids even the making of such images or likenesses. The second commandment forbids the attempt to represent God by visible and material objects or re-enactments. It is not to be done. Now, how could a command of God be any more clear? And yet there are so many today who profess to believe that Christ is God the Son who continue to produce, purchase, and utilize images and likenesses of Him. Why is this?
There are several reasons given, all of which can be shown to be misguided:
a. Some will say, 'We are not worshipping these images - they are merely helps, aids to our devotion to the real Jesus'. This is precisely the argument that the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church have made for centuries, and they are the chief proponents of images and likenesses and re-enactments of Christ. And today we are seeing a huge movement among evangelicals to go 'back to Rome' in their embracing of this underlying thought - that images of Christ are 'useful' for evangelism - an 'aid' to our devotion. But what is wrong with this argument? Well, first of all, it ignores the fact that the second commandment not only forbids the 'worship' of such images and likenesses - it forbids the very 'making' of them! Secondly, it seeks to elevate 'pragmatic' arguments over and above God's Law. The Philistine cart that David used was no doubt very useful, but it was not what God had ordained. And thirdly, to say that an image of Christ is an 'aid' to devotion is to commit nothing less than spiritual adultery. It would be a very strange thing indeed for a wife to be viewing a picture of another man when her husband was away, all the while claiming to be thinking of her husband! (And 'the Lord our God is a jealous God' Ex.20:5).
b. Some will say, 'We are merely depicting the humanity of Jesus, not His deity'. But this is to repeat the ancient error of dividing the person of Christ. He is ONE person with two natures. Christ is an object of worship in both His humanity and deity, because you cannot separate the two. In heaven we will be bowing down to a man! The person of Jesus Christ is an object of worship - to say that images of Him only reflect His humanity and therefore are not images of deity is attempting to put asunder what God hath joined together. Furthermore, we are never given permission to understand Christ in any other way than as the God-Man. It is the very fact that Jesus is God that made Him the Savior. And it is the sight of Jesus Christ as both God and Man that is necessary unto salvation. To view an image or a re-enactment of Christ hanging on the cross, all the while saying, 'This is not a breaking of the second commandment, because after all, we are viewing only His human nature', is to miss the point of the gospel entirely! It is NOT a mere man hanging there on the cross - He is God the Son - an object of our worship! And there was a glory, a beauty, a divine presence about Jesus that shone through the veil of His flesh that no artist, no director, no screen actor could ever portray. And what kind of arrogance (or what kind of ignorance) do you suppose is necessary for a person to actually think he can accurately portray God the Son, much less take upon himself that role!
There is an incipient disrespect among those who manufacture and use images and depictions of Christ today. Jesus said (John 5:23) that 'all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father.' No evangelical would ever think of attempting to role-play God the Father - they honor the Father. And yet so many dishonor God the Son in this way! Why? Is He any less God? Is it because He has taken upon Himself humanity that we all of a sudden feel like we can make images of Him? Once again, when we do such a thing, we are forgetting that Christ is one person - and we must view Him and treat Him as one person, not two. And the 'person' of Jesus Christ (in all of His humanity and deity) is an object of worship. And therefore the making of likenesses or images of that one person, that one object of worship, is a breaking of the second commandment.
2. Because of the dangerous precedents it sets.
Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' and all other re-enactments of Christ set very dangerous precedents for evangelicals. Allow me to mention a few:
a. One of the major issues of the Reformation was the depiction of Christ, either in the form of paintings or statues. Do we not see that 21st century images are now branching out into movies and theater? What is the essential difference between these two media? Nothing. Already evangelical churches are putting up movie posters in their church and youth group rooms. Already trinkets and other paraphernalia are being marketed, all featuring pictures and scenes from Mel Gibson's movie. There will be T-Shirts, bumperstickers, wall-hangings, bookmarks, DVD's, etc. in evangelicals' homes and churches all across America. Now what is the difference between that and the Roman Catholics' paintings and images and pendants? Nothing whatsoever! For evangelicals to jump on board so readily to this kind of hype is not surprising, considering that they lost their Theological moorings a long time ago. But to those who remember the Reformation, it is very alarming to see such a dangerous precedent being set, when God's people were martyred over such issues!
b. Another dangerous precedent being set is the shifting away from God's ordained means of evangelism. Evangelicals everywhere are so excited about Mel Gibson's movie as a means of evangelism, because we live in such a 'visual-oriented' society. In other words, 'Let's go ahead and be pragmatists instead of following God's methods'. But what has God chosen? The foolishness of preaching! In Galatians 3:1 Paul writes, 'O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?' That is a very interesting verse, because Paul says that Jesus Christ crucified was portrayed among them. But how, we may ask, was He portrayed? Through a re-enactment? After all, Paul the apostle could have hired actors to do drama - he was living in a day when plays and ëtragediesí were at their best! Theater was a well-known form of expression and entertainment. And yet, Paul did not hold up images of Christ and call everyone to look upon the images. He did not hire actors to re-enact the crucifixion. Oh, what crowds he might have drawn had he done so! But that is not what he did, because that is not what his Lord had ordained. What did he do? He preached Christ crucified, buried, and risen again! It is the foolishness of preaching, not the cleverness or 'hip-ness' of drama, that God has ordained for evangelism.
We are not surprised at all when people express emotion at a movie - especially one that involves pain and suffering. We are not surprised that there should be strong, emotional reactions to a piece of well-done cinematography! But when a person is so moved under the preaching of the gospel and brought under a powerful sense of conviction under mere preaching - then we know that it is most likely the power of God and not mere human emotion. The whole reason why God has chosen the 'foolishness of preaching' is in order to demonstrate that 'the excellence of the power is of God and not of men' (2 Cor.4:7). This movie of Mel Gibson's will produce many 'reactions' - and evangelicals will cry 'Revival has come!' But it will be, by and large, just another vehicle by which the church is filled with yet more temporary believers and goats - 'converts' made by the power of men and of cinematography.
c. Furthermore, another dangerous precedent that is being set here is a truncated gospel. That is, a gospel that has been edited and modified. Mel Gibson's movie is a historical re-enactment of the crucifixion, but the gospel is more than that. The gospel is a declaration of the historical facts (including the resurrection, by the way). It is also a Theological interpretation of those facts. Evangelism is not just about declaring or showing the historical facts (what happened), but also the 'meaningí of those facts (what do those facts have to do with me - why did Jesus die? Who was Jesus?). And evangelism also includes an ethical summons to repent and believe. The mere portrayal of Christ being tortured and dying is not IN ITSELF the gospel.
And I would add also, that the physical sufferings of our Lord were nothing compared to the real suffering that He experienced in His soul as He bore the sins of a world of sinners and the unmitigated wrath of God upon Him. The preaching of the gospel - evangelism - must not focus so much on the physical sufferings of our Lord, because many people have suffered even worse physical agony throughout the history of the world. What must be emphasized is (1) who Jesus is, and (2) His spiritual agony in undergoing the wrath of God for sin and being separated from His Father, experiencing infinite wrath in a finite period of time. What the gospel is about is not that the Jews or the Romans murdered Jesus - it is that God the Father killed His only begotten Son - poured out His wrath on Him (Isaiah 53:10 - 'It pleased God to bruise Him'; 2 Cor.5:21).
The idea that exposing people to violent cruelty on screen will move them is nothing novel - of course it will! But people are not converted by feeling 'sorry' for Jesus - people are converted when they are brought to see that His physical sufferings were 'nothing' compared to the agonies of His soul which He endured in the place of sinners BY THE HAND OF GOD. The thought that Mel Gibson's hand is in the movie, hammering the nail into Jesus' hands, showing Mel's conviction that his sins nailed Jesus to the cross, is very touching. But it is still not communicating the 'real' suffering that Jesus underwent.
Drama cannot replace preaching for this very reason. Drama gives us a two-dimensional look - it only helps us see the surface of things. Preaching from God's Word gives us the visible as well as the spiritual - all the dimensions that are necessary for us to see in order to be saved. People often complain, 'Yes, I saw the movie, but the book was better.' How much more is this the case with Mel Gibsonís movie - would not the book (a book written by God!) be better than a movie directed by Mel Gibson, the Roman Catholic? And yet, evangelicals everywhere are swooning as though 'At last - something better than the Bible has arrived!' But the Scriptures are sufficient! It is the Scriptures that are able to make us wise unto salvation - and there is so much more in the Scriptures concerning the crucifixion than the mere two-dimensional re-enactment of Jesus films.
d. One more dangerous precedent is being set as well. All such depictions of Christ are indelibly etched upon the mind and no amount of mental scrubbing can erase them! Those who see Mel Gibson's movie will have a difficult time reading the New Testament with an open mind, because they will picture Christ (His face, His movements, His tonal expressions, His body language, etc.) in terms of the actor they saw in that movie. Those images will be a hindrance, not a help, in understanding Scripture. This is to allow Mel Gibson to be the Holy Spirit. Brethren, it is of the very nature of faith not to rely on physical images or representations. 'Spiritual' worship, not carnal, is what the New Covenant is all about (John 4:24).
Please take this letter in the spirit in which it is written. I prayerfully debated long and hard in my mind whether to even address this, and I have experienced these last couple of weeks nothing short of a burning in my soul. I believe that what we are seeing in our day is a gradual 'slouching' toward full-blown idolatry. In the 80's television show after television show came out regarding 'angels', not to mention many popular books. The general public became obsessed with the idea of angels and the depicting of them. That was bad enough, but then in the 90's and in this decade as well, there has been a barrage of books and movies and television shows attempting to depict 'God' (Bruce Almighty, Joan of Arcadia, etc.), which can be nothing less than a 'taking of God's name in vain', not to mention a breaking of the 2nd commandment. And now there is a resurgence of the Roman Catholic tradition of depicting God the Son. All of this reminds me of the Northern Tribes of Israel who from the very outset set up a golden calf and called it 'Jehovah'. They still worshipped 'Jehovah', so they said. Their reasoning was that they were not really depicting His deity, but rather a 'quality' of His deity - that of His 'strength'! But they attempted to represent Jehovah to their physical 'senses', and God considered it an abomination! And sure enough, the precedent that was set by that one compromise led to greater deviations in the future - even to full-blown Baal worship. Maintaining doctrinal purity, brethren, is about seeing things in the 'leaven' stage BEFORE they reach the permeation stage. Let us be careful that we do not get 'carried away' with every religious 'hype' that comes down the pike, but pray for discernment and consider not just what we are doing, but what precedents are being set by our actions.
All for His Glory and Honor,
Posted by Brad at February 28, 2004 11:41 PM | TrackBack