“Son Of God” Movie

With all the excitement surrounding the subject movie, I am reminded of another movie which came out about ten years ago, The Passion of the Christ.  I’m guessing at least half that movie was Roman Catholic tradition and extra-biblical teachings, which made it no more than a Catholic propaganda piece.  And yet it became a fad for evangelical Christian churches to buy out entire theater showings for their congregations.  

Mel Gibson, the man who produced the movie, even said it was a “Marian film,” that the audience sees the scene through the eyes of Mary.

An excellent book was published not long after the movie, titled Showtime For the Sheep?: The Church and The Passion of the Christ, by T.A. McMahon.  In this book McMahon delves into the Roman Catholic teachings which are seen throughout the movie, the philosophies behind the making of it, and much more thought-provoking material.  I highly recommend you procure a copy so you can read the entire book.

The following citations are from McMahon’s book, which I think are applicable also to Son of God.  Think objectively about what McMahon is saying.

“How, then, could a movie that is attempting to communicate the subject matter of Scripture employ a method, i.e., the manipulation of emotions, that is contrary to God’s Word?”  (p.25)

“When entertainment, or amusement, takes the reins in attempting to teach us about matters of serious consequence, the outcome will be a delusion.”  (p.28)

“When amusement, fun, and entertainment enter into the handling the Word of God, no matter how sincere the attempt, the trivialization of the Word takes place.” (p.31)

“Deviating from what God said to what someone feels He said is delusion heading for spiritual disaster.” (p.39)

“When a movie such as The Passion is perceived as portraying biblical content in the most accurate way it can, and when evangelical leaders across the country attest to its biblical accuracy, should not the film be scrutinized the same way one would scrutinize a television evangelist or anyone else feeding us religious content?  Shouldn’t we search the Scriptures to see if ‘it is as it was’?”  (p.42)

“How many biblical inaccuracies disqualify The Passion from being officially rated as biblically accurate?  Does the film lose points for including extra-biblical items?” (p.45)

“Those evangelicals who sang the praises of the film’s ‘creative license’ shared no concern that the Bible declares that an angel came to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane to strengthen Him, not the devil to tempt him.  Biblical ‘accuracy’ lost its meaning at the outset of The Passion and never recovered it throughout the rest of the movie.” (p.46)

“At what point in The Passion could we say that the words ‘biblical accuracy’ and ‘scriptural integrity’ cease to be applicable?  What could those who love the Word of God possibly be thinking as the above images parade past their eyes and fill their minds?  My guess is they weren’t thinking -- at least not biblically.  They were ‘experiencing’ movie magic.” (p.48)

“Can an evangelical enthusiast for The Passion get away with crying ‘art’ in the face of objections to its taking numerous and outlandish liberties with the Gospels?  Certainly, but in so doing, all he is saying is that The Passion is an aesthetically pleasing production that perverts the truth of God’s Word through the interpretive vision of Mel Gibson and his fellow craftsmen.”  (p.49)

“A picture that isn’t actually of me, but resembles me, is still not me.  I hope it’s become apparent how inane it is to have an image that is someone’s guess as to what Jesus looks like.  Yet it seems that many evangelicals don’t get it. ... I know evangelicals who go ballistic over the absurdity of renderings in natural history museums of ‘prehistoric’ near-humans or ‘creative’ reconstructions of animals based on a tooth, yet who don’t think twice when their Lord and Savior is subjected to the same thing.” (p.78)

“When a man’s ideas are fashioned into images of Jesus, the result is a false Jesus.”
(p.81)

“Yet, sadly, this film misses the punishment for our sins that Christ endured from God and focuses exclusively on the physical sufferings inflicted by men -- which could never save, but only condemn us.  This tragic misunderstanding is the very heart of the movie and must be corrected by anyone seeking to evangelize those who have been stirred to interest by viewing Gibson’s film.”  (p.96)

“Would an evangelical pastor give his pulpit to somebody who just came in off the street?  Not if he were a good shepherd.  What if the person off the street were someone of worldwide fame?  Not if the pastor were a good shepherd.  Would this pastor give his pulpit to someone whose religious beliefs were contrary to the beliefs he had taught his sheep?  Not if he were a good shepherd.  Would an evangelical pastor send his flock across the street to hear a famous actor stand on a soapbox and spout off about his religion?  Not if he were a good shepherd.  What if, instead of the soapbox on the corner, the ‘spouting off’ was done in Latin and Aramaic at a theater down the street?”  (p.111)

“Does the Holy Spirit work through the manipulation of emotions, or is it the truth that sets one free?  When someone truly believes the gospel, emotions may (or may not) be involved, but never as a conditioning device to ‘ripen’ someone to accept Christ.  That would be deception and is therefore directly at odds with the Spirit of Truth.” (p.131)

If your pastor plans on recommending this new film, show him the linked  review above, and the citations from this post, and ask him to reconsider sending his flock to see the man on the soapbox.