Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"
(Pre Release Review)
Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of The Christ" can serve the holiest cause that the world has ever known, or serve the most wicked. Reactions to the movie, stirred by graphic scenes of cruel violence against the innocent, suffering Savior, may serve to promote either the wonderful cause of Christ or the lusts of the Devil. It will serve the cause of Christ if the reaction of the viewer is to seek the face of God to become a more devoted servant of Christ Jesus. It will serve the lusts of the Devil if the reaction of the viewer is to seek to become a more devoted servant of Christianity. There is a difference.
The choice of the heart is "Christ or Christianity", and God is asking us to make the right choice, now. If there is a revival of holiness and faith among us (and God knows that we need it), that revival of spirit will be challenged by Christianity's call for more members, more ceremonies, more money, more buildings, and it will lead, in the end, to more death. When God calls us, He calls us to Himself, not to Christianity, and those whose hearts will find Him are those who are moved to be genuinely desirous to learn and to do His will (instead of being moved to perform more Christian religious works). And at His call, they will come out of "the unclean thing" that men call Christianity to serve Christ "in the newness of life".
If people choose Christ, they will receive the new birth (the baptism of the holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues) as a reward now, and if their works continue to please God, they will receive the reward of eternal salvation in the end. The kingdom of God is made of those who love Jesus first and experience the new birth of spirit that Jesus promised.
If people choose Christianity, they will become more involved in fund raisers, membership drives, construction projects, ceremonial form, and with all that, will become more confused than ever. Follow the life-giving Spirit of Christ, my friend, not the spirit of Christianity. Jesus is coming again, my dear Reader, not to call Christians to his heavenly home but to call those whom he has sanctified by the holy Ghost baptism. Sanctification of the Spirit, not joining a church, is the mark of those who have true faith in the risen Lord Jesus.
 I am thankful that someone with some notoriety and lots of money like Mel Gibson has made a movie that speaks well of our Lord Jesus ("The Passion of the Christ"), and I hope that Jesus richly blesses Mr Gibson for his courage and conviction. But what the result of the movie will be is yet to be seen. The result will depend upon whether those who see the movie are moved to fall more deeply in love with Satan's religion that calls itself by the name of the Christ (Christianity) or if they will fall more deeply in love with Christ himself.
Pastor John
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"
(Post Release Review)
My daughter and I went to see the Passion of the Christ Friday afternoon. I went again last night with some folks here. Here are some of my thoughts.
Mel Gibson's claim to have followed the story of the Gospels was true only in part. It may be too much to expect that anyone could be perfectly faithful to the Biblical text in a movie, so the notable absences are excusable. It was not the absences from the true story that detracted from the story, however; it was his unnecessary Catholic additions that polluted his work.
The Book is better than the movie.
Still, in this movie, something positive is being said about Jesus in public. In our culture at this time, that is enough to make for a good review. Recently, the government of this perverse nation has made efforts to erase all mention of Jesus from public life. There are very few citizens of the USA who have ever even heard our President or other high officials so much as mention the holy name of Jesus. It isn't politically safe to do that, you know. This movie will be a "speed bump" that will slow down that attitude for a while. I am thankful that the movie has been made because of the positive image of Jesus that Mel Gibson dared to present to the public. I hope that God blesses him for it.
The Catholic Church's ungodly glorification of Jesus' mother Mary was a heavy influence on the content of the film. I can only guess that there must be some ancient Catholic tradition of her mopping up Jesus' blood after his flogging by the Romans with towels given to her by Pilate's distraught wife. That was a strange scene, reflective of Catholicism's obsession with dead flesh. One can easily see the influence of Catholicism's superstitious attachment to body parts of dead saints in her and Mary Magdalene's collecting the blood.
And after Peter cursed and swore that he never knew Jesus, Peter did not fall on his knees before Mary, calling her "mother" and confessing his sin. Mary was not even there that night. That movie scene is pure love of Christianity, not love of Christ.
Part of the glory of God revealed in the New Testament is that no one but Jesus and the Father knew what Jesus was doing while he was doing it. His purpose was a mystery to everyone on earth. He was also a mystery to the spiritual powers of darkness, even to Satan. There is no way that Satan could have known God's immaculately wise plan before the day of Pentecost, when God revealed what He had accomplished in Christ Jesus. In the movie, however, both Mary and Satan understood what Jesus was doing all along. This error is in keeping with Christianity's glorification of both Mary and the devil.
Mr. Gibson told one interviewer that the people who did not like this film did not have a problem him; they had a problem with the four Gospels, implying, of course, that he was merely telling the story of Jesus as found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is not true. Much was left out and much was added. It is possible that one could dislike the movie and yet have no problem whatsoever with the four Gospels.
There are a number of other "Hollywood-ish" and Christian exclusions and intrusions into the gospel story in this movie, such as Jesus, after his arrest, being knocked off a high wall and falling almost to the ground, far below, before the chains and ropes that were around him caught him--just inches before he would have smashed into the ground below (right beside a miserable, hiding Judas, too, if you can believe it!) This part was pure Hollywood. In order not to seem too critical, though, I will be content with these examples of how the story of Jesus has been altered by Mel Gibson to make the story more exciting for the viewers and to further his own religion: Catholicism.
Because I have read the story of Jesus in the Gospels so many times, the first time I saw the movie, I could not concentrate on it very well because of Mr. Gibson's surprising additions that kept interfering with the real story that I remembered from the Gospels. The second viewing last night was better because I was expecting those errors and could keep my mind more focused on what was happening to Jesus.
Mr. Gibson accomplished one thing particularly well. That was the role and character of Pontius Pilate. What we find in the Bible was replicated in the movie. The "chess match" between him and Caiaphas for the life of Jesus was there; his unwillingness to kill Jesus was there; and his inability to worm out of the situation was there. The chief priest of Israel, though having less political authority than Pilate, was too crafty for him and boxed him into a corner. In the end, Pilate felt compelled to give in and crucify an innocent man.
Mr. Gibson's commitment to the Catholic Church prevented him from making the Biblically-faithful movie he claimed to have made. It could have been much more accurately done, had he made a movie on the last hours of Christ that truly reflected the story as told in the four Gospels. But the effect on those who saw the movie was the same as mine. Silence. The movie leaves one speechless. None of us spoke about anything from the time we left the theater until we arrived at home and went to bed.
Pastor John
| 
