NRO has a large section on The Passion today. The RC reviewers have a lot to say, and it amounts really to this for me: RC spirituality says look at the sufferings, and keep looking. It will do you good, now and forever. I believe that, though in a much different way than Ignatius of Loyola did, but I can come together with my RC friends and rejoice that art has found a way to serve the Word, and both do their work.

Of course, some Baptist reviews on lists I monitor are complaining about this very Catholic element- and many others. I hear them as well. The scriptures are not as unbalanced as this piece of art, but that is OK. This is what it is, and it depicts our sins, his body, and the sacrifice that brought about our salvation. We may disagree on many things surrounding what we see, how it fits together with other things that must be said, what we ought to and ought not to expect…but I am happy that for a couple of hours it may be possible for the cross of Christ to be on our minds, and many people will ask if their life has truly responded to what that means? Amen to our RC friends on that score.

Tell us the good news you have, Michael. For crying out loud, I want to read something positive and upbeat! If not, I’ll have to go into detail concerning the mess I made this morning in our Ash Wednesday service ;-)

Those of you who read the Friedman review may be reading the single most hysterical review of the film yet. What do you think of his contention that Prayer Shawls will now equal Christ killers for a whole generation?

Every review I read says the portrayal of Mary is powerful. Is this single element going to knock down a lot of Protestant objections to the Marian element in RC Christianity? Will a film result in a Marian revival?

We are 3/4 of the way through the London 2000 prodution of Jesus Christ Superstar. Despite its many flaws, there are some scenes- especially in this production- that are just great. Very on target. “Christ you know I love you. Did you see I waved? I believe in you and God so tell me that I’m saved.”

Phillip: The offer on the Capon book stands. If you can’t deal with it, I’ll buy it outright.

I still have some good news to share, but this place is such a mess I feel bad calling a press conference.

I’m sorry Jack. You used a word I don’t know. Try harder.

Not to try to fill your shoes or anything Michael, but I think I may be better qualified to be the class dummy than you, because I have no freaking idea whatsoever what this whole discussion is about. I’m as clueless as eunuch in a seraglio.

Hey Phillip: Don’t go sour on me, brother. Our sense of humor may be all we have left. 8-)

My suggestion that we drop a picture of the crucified Jesus- or even a silent movie!- on an unreached tribe and see what happens is getting no respect over at the blog where I was held up as an example of those who err tragically in not seeing the obvious power of an icon to convert on its own. But I still thinks it’s a good idea. The Roman Centurian, who knew absolutely nothing about Jesus (sarcasm alert) looked at him and said, “This crucified guy is the Son of God.” I don’t see why residents of Borneo couldn’t have the same experience. In fact, it would be a good use of a lot of Mormon artwork. And speaking for myself, I could get a lot more enthused about door to door witnessing if I could use pictures with no Biblical content to explain them. (Knock knock. Open…....”Harold, there’s a man with a picture at the front door.”) It’s reading all those verses to strangers that bummed me out.

Because let’s remember, despite the slanderous moron over at Mr. Strodtbeck’s comment thread’s uncorrected contention, and Mr. Strodtbeck’s own repeated claim, I did not say that all visuals are worthless and only the endless reading of the Bible is revelatory. I said that without Biblical content to explain what is happening, it won’t be understood as the Gospel. Not as propitiation. Not as justification. Not as substitution. (I am nominating this for a Duh Award. :)

The pouncing character in the comment thread has to say I am claiming no one who ever experienced God outside of scripture had a genuine encounter with God. I guess he knows this omnisciently despite the fact I believe in the sovereignty of God, despite multiple postings on the “Wider Hope” discussion, despite general revelation, etc. I mean, if it helps anyone, I believe God can show whoever he wants whatever he wants. He can show ‘em Jesus in a tortilla if it suits him. And he can sure show them Jesus as Savior in Mel’s movie, which is chock full of Biblical content by the way, though apparently not enough to impress David Friedman at Fox News 411, who HATED the film, despite seeing the crucifixion.

I’m curious. What works best? A Mel Gibson Movie or the Mormon movie about Jesus you can order free off the TV? I’m asking because, again, irony of freakin’ ironies, I have all kinds of Jesus movies I show to my students. Jesus of Nazereth. The Jesus Film. A Catholic thing on the Passion. Superstar. Gospel of John. Clips from Last Temptation. Max Maclean on Mark. Another guy on Mark. Collection of clips from Phillip Yancey’s video series of Jesus. The Matthew Movie. I’m a regular MTV of cinematic iconography. Third quarter, my kids are floating in it. I even finally got permission to take my High School Bible students to see The Passion. So what a hypocrite I am. I think these images are helpful as much as they honor and communicate Biblical content. And get this: I actually TEST my students over how faithful the movies are to…SCRIPTURE!! What a goose I am, huh?

You know what? This conversation is about how far one person will go to nitpick and create controversy with another. I could play Frued and try to figure this out. I won’t.

Instead, I am going to add a rule to the BHT.

If you don’t have the time to READ other posts and then respond to the POSTER in a way that honors the person above your disagreement, then you won’t be posting here. I will drop you. Without guilt.

This isn’t a bombing range to see how accurate your targeting skills are.

It’s a discussion by people who are on the same road. Probably the best fellowship we have on here is asking common questions. I’ve been asking questions about this movie. I asked questions about the RP. I’d like to ask questions about the relationship of suffering and sacrifice. Maybe we will talk universalism and Robert Capon if Phillip can take it. :) But if that process constantly is bombed from above, then I imagine it will become somewhat rare that anyone will want to take their chances and stick their head out.

Every so often, we may need an orthodoxy cop on here, but it better darned well be over something so fundamental and plainly significant anyone can understand it. And I’ll be happy to volunteer as the class dummy. If the denunciation is over my head, if it’s so “in your school” that it’s meaningless to me, you better be explaining it as a fellow traveller, for all our benefit, and not just informing us that we crossed the lines that only you can see. If your contention of being “outside orthodoxy” actually means the Lutherans disapprove of the Calvinists, then learn to say it that way at the outset.

Josh: Bull. While I disagree with Michael over the potential of the film, your disagreement is specious, typical of your arguments here. Michael said: “The fact that a really great guy was brutally tortured and killed means nothing. ONLY THE BIBLE explains the Gospel. A FILM OF THE EVENTS cannot tell us anything without the Bible’s content and proclamation of the meaning of the story.” (emphasis added) This is essentially undebatable if read for what it is.

I still hope for value in the film because most North Americans are certainly already aware of “the meaning of the story.” That meaning came from the Bible, and that’s it. If this film is effective in proclaiming the gospel, it will be because it depends on the proclamation originally found within the Word.

Michael demonstrated this point and was mocked, but he’s right: For his statement to be false, this movie dropped in an unreached area of some continent somewhere should result in conversions. For you to miss this clear statement means you’re not really paying attention.

The gospel isn’t about some guy getting the crap kicked out of him. The gospel is God made flesh, taking our sin upon Him, the wrath of God poured out upon Him, and Him resurrected. Inasmuch as this film reflects that Biblical truth, it can tell us something. Inasmuch as it does not, whether by leaving things out or getting things wrong, it can tell us nothing True.

Most people around here like each other, Josh. When people make statements, we don’t tend to look for the most convoluted way in which to read them and come up with something disagreeable. And therefore most of us don’t have to spend three days contemplating whether whatever we say is going to annoy some kid with a chip on his shoulder. Think about it .

Jim: The ill-will of others has never given Lutherans a cause to renounce their confession. I’m pretty sure that the pope was pretty offended by what we said about his authority in “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.” He probably still is offended by it. In fact, I’ll bet that all Catholics are really super-offended by it. It’s still in the Book of Concord. I’m not going to start believing a certain way just because my current beliefs make you mad.

Phillip: I think Michael and I have a real, fundamental disagreement going on here. It’s the rational framework vs the mystical framework. I don’t pit verbal propositions against image and experience or have any particular reason to divide them into two distinct categories. I don’t particularly know why megachurch evangelicals are fawning all over this movie, and I don’t particularly care. All I know is that my understanding of the Gospel is shaped by the Scriptures, the sacraments, iconography (incl Eastern, Roman, and Reformation) and Christian liturgical tradition, especially the medieval Western meditations on the Passion and the liturgical observance of Lent and Holy Week. From what I’ve heard so far in movie reviews and whatnot, it sounds like Mel’s coming at things from a similar angle, which is why I’m looking forward to the movie. From what I’ve heard so far on this site, it sounds like Michael is totally not of this mindset, that he considers such mindset to be entirely deficient, and really really really does not comprehend that I flatly disagree with his tack on things.

Jenny’s mention of the snake is pretty pertinent. A crucifix is an image of Christ on a much higher order than a snake, since Jesus is the image of the invisible God by definition (and yes, a crucifix is an icon).

Of course, you mentioned rules the EO’s have about iconography, and I mostly agree with you. Some (not all) EO theologians have gone all the way as to say that unless you paint an icon in their style (which they view as God-given rather than, say, Byzantine) and with their methods (incl. consecrations and prayers), it’s not a “real” icon. That’s just plain-vanilla legalism.

All of this “who killed Jesus” talk reminds me of the infamous “Dead Bishop” sketch from Monty Python, particularly at the end when the hand of God comes down to help the Vicar-Sergant of the Church Police id the perp:

Son: It’s a fair cop, but society’s to blame.
Vicar: Right, we’ll book them, too.

Update: Here’s a transcript. Not quite accurate to my memory, but there are several version of the sketch.

Piper is discussing The Movie and his book on DGRadio today and tomorrow. He’s one of the few people who will say The Father killed Jesus.

Another person who would say this is Michael Horton. In his book, “We Believe: Recovering the Essentials of the Apostle’s Creed” he states: In truth, it was not the Jews or the Romans who crucified Jesus Christ. It was God the Father who drove the spear into the side of his only Son, so that out of that sacred wound would flow the blood that would wash away the sins of his church. It was this cup – the “cup of wrath” (Isaiah 51-17) – that caused our savior’s forehead to yield bloody sweat in the eve of his crucifixion”. Page 102.

Just a gentle reminder, the BHT pictures are needed to me by… oh, let’s say Friday at Noon. I don’t actually need the pictures in my e-mail… if they’re out there on the web, just get me a web page address… if it’s a group photo, just say, “I’m in the top row, 2nd from the right”. So far, several of you have responded, and your pictures are coming along nicely. I’ll post the thing as a link so that ya’ll can see the final product.

Remember – Friday at Noooooooon!

I don’t have time to post to BHT right now, and I certainly resent being told that I’m not taking the time to post an explanation of why it is that I don’t have time. I don’t have time to point out how irrational that is, either.

I ran into another LCMS person last night. I take back my admission that I am Satan Incarnate. I’m only a minor demon. Satan is definately either LCMS or IFCA.

I’m sorry, but it’s not like stale bread and cheep wine (from a shared cup, no less) is that appealing of a meal that I’m going to force myself into someone’s private ceremony. I’ve lost my compassion too many times with respect to this issue. So I’m going to quote someone who has more compassion, and then yet again vow never to comment on this again:

Christianity has designated certain places more sacred than others, some days holier than others, some actions more religious than others, giving the impression that contact with God happens primarily, if not exclusively, on the first day of the week in a building called church. Confining God’s presence to certain predictable times and places is restrictive and leads to the unspoken assumption that the rest of the week is irreligious. As far as Jesus is concerned, thought, the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath.

—Brennan Manning [who probably can’t even take communion in his own church at this point]

Yet another one, but it won’t matter to most.

Josh, your repeated mis-reading of Michael’s statement is just stupid, whether because of inattention or animosity I neither know nor care. Feel free to spend as much time as you want on your own popular blog, but please do us the respect of paying attention here, or not posting here if you don’t have the time to pay attention. Most of the members here see this as their primary or only blog, and shouting comments as you run by is simply disruptive for everybody else. Thanks.

I thought this was a good tidbit—forgive me for it being from a WOMAN PREACHER from that LIBERAL MAGAZINE!!

“Settling for Less,”
Barbara Brown Taylor,
The Christian Century, 1998.

“That hollowness we sometimes feel
is not a sign of something gone wrong.
It is the holy of holies inside of us,
the uncluttered throne room of the Lord our God.
Nothing on earth can fill it,
but that does not stop us from trying.
Whenever we start feeling too empty inside,
we stick our pacifiers into our mouths
and suck for all we are worth.
They do not nourish us, but at least they plug the hole.”
_____

I prefer to start my day with a shot of bourbon.

“ONLY THE BIBLE explains the Gospel. A FILM OF THE EVENTS cannot tell us anything without the Bible’s content and proclamation of the meaning of the story.”

It sounds to me like Michael is saying the film can’t really tell the Gospel.

My “drive-by” style comes mostly from the fact that I’m a grad student and already running a fairly popular blog. I don’t have time to deal thoroughly with every discussion thread on this site. I don’t find that unethical in the slightest.

I get to do a review of The Passion for the horribly anti-religious leftist campus newspaper which I am oh-so-proud to be a design editor for. Life is too short to pass up such an opportunity!

A friend and I went to a 7:30 a.m. Ash Wednesday service at a local Episcopal church this morning. Talk about getting some crazy looks! All the old ladies were even more excited to learn that PRESBYTERIANS had actually stepped in the door! I like starting my day with a sip of wine…I think I might make this a habit ;)

My New Year’s Resolution to start smoking hasn’t gone well. If it isn’t the weather, it’s so late the day, and I’m tired. The pipe sits mostly unused. I canceled most of my tivo programs recently, that might help. Anyway, with my track record, I may not do anything for Lent. Plus, my evening pastor made fun of me the other night when I suggested that I might participate.

But I’ll probably give up liquid caffeine. And contemplate my death.

Alex: I have gradually come to the believe that post-modernism’s lack of specific truth claims is deliberate, and I’ll give the pomo founders some credit for this. Recognizing that they themselves are rejecting trivial issues (style over substance) for no better reason than that they don’t like them, they know that they themselves will fall victim to the same problem someday/ It is always the way that the revolutionaries find themselves in the big house with revolutionaries at the door. So the idea comes to them in a flash of inspiration. “By tearing down what is, but not specifically replacing it with anything in particular, by standing for nothing specific at all, how can anyone come along and tear us down? What is there to tear down? What matters is that we think about these things and talk about these things. How dare you say that I believe in something! I reject that – I believe in nothing!” And so on.

I have yet to see post-modernism as a defensible philosophy. Instead, I see it used as a weapon to bash those who attempt to grasp what a post-modernist believes. Blech.

It worked pretty well last year, so I’m going to give up fast-food french fries for Lent… to see if I can do it again. Guess I’m going to have to start ordering salads.

Chick Translation – hopefully later today…

I’m giving up all sweets for Lent. Hopefully every instance of temptation/exercise of self control will be a way to remind me of Christ’s self-denial. If’n I happen to lose some weight in the process, that’ll just be bonus.

Well, while in Syracuse yesterday I went to the big Christian bookstore that is there. I came out depressed as usual. I asked the guy at the counter if they had a “classics” section, where I might find books by Spurgeon, Bunyan, Wesley, etc. He looked confused for a moment and then recovered and showed me to a single bookshelf. It had about a dozen books on it, fully half of which were the Oswald Chambers devotional. I remember a few In His Steps, a Pilgrim’s Progress or two, book two of an allegory by Hannah Hurnard, and perhaps a few others.

On the other hand, I can get a Jabez book in any flavor I want. I can get snack bars made from the 7 foods in Deuteronomy, and I can get a different New Testament for each branch of the military. There’s already a bunch of “Passion” merchandise I can get.

I don’t blame the bookstore. A business has to stock things that sell, if they want to stay in business, but it saddens me none the less.

Icons: my own poorly thought out view of icons is that icons are the result of a bunch of people “wanting to go back to Egypt”. Heck, I’m not even sure I know what that means, but I’m leaving it up anyway.

MODERATOR NOTES:

THe 500 Internal Server Error notices seem to be a minor glitch because I am sharing a server. Here’s the two commandments:

1) Mostly just ignore them. 95% of the time your post or comment went through just fine.
2) If you don’t see it, WAIT and it will probably appear with the next post.

Also, I am considering rewriting some rules today, maybe the whole “rules” page. So suggestions are in order.

Finally, I dropped two non posters yesterday.

Did any of y’all get an advertisment from Amazon.com today? Apparently, as “someone who has purchased related items” I might want to check out the Passion of the Christ in theatres near me. I checked, the only thing I ordered that flagged me was the Lutheran Book of Concord on CD-ROM. I didn’t get an ad for the Luther movie. This marketing has to be unprecidented, and I don’t think Mel’s money alone could possibly be doing it all.

Matthew has Barking Walrus looking like a blog, including comments. Stop by and say something witty or obnoxious.

Piper is discussing The Movie and his book on DGRadio today and tomorrow. He’s one of the few people who will say The Father killed Jesus. Isaiah 53:10, Acts 4:27-28. He is also selling his book on The Passion of Jesus Christ by the case for $130 for 108 copies. Giveaway prices for distribution.

To answer the observation that ”...you seem to have completely separated the Son of God taking on the sins of the world from his suffering in the flesh.” Let me list some quotes from my essay, Jesus’ Fifteen Minutes.

In the Gospel, the ransom is the mediator, and the power of the ransom is the mediator.

There is, I believe, a real need to look at the Gospel accounts and remember that the center of the story is the wrath of the Father poured out on the Son.

Now, this suffering redeems us, in every way that we can be redeemed, and it redeems all of human life and every dimension of human life.

It is the person, and the offered life, of Jesus Christ that reconciles and saves us. But for Jesus, the walk to that death, in his time, was a walk through intense suffering, and a walk to a terrible death on the cross. We see the suffering of Jesus, and we understand in a human way, what the love and grace of God will do for us.

So Christ suffering and crucified is what we can see and understand, in an eternal work among the Godhead that we cannot see or understand.

Christ’s sufferings are our healing, our redemption and our salvation, but all we see are the sufferings, and then only seeing with eyes of faith really sees. We cannot truly understand these things. But we can look at the suffering and the crucified one, and believe.

I’m not sure what else I could say. Fundamental to my understanding of salvation is that Jesus is our salvation. Just as fundamental is the belief that our salvation depends on the Son offering his life- in totality- to the Father as a propitiation, etc.

The “etc” is an acknowledgment that the Biblical material contains many different images to give us insights into what is happening and the meaning of what is happening. I remember reading Leon Morris’s book about The Atonement many years ago, and thinking what a rich diversity of ways to look at the death of Jesus are put forward in the Bible. Of course, the relationship of all this material to one another is endlessly controversial among Christians. I totally agree with the Morris quote from my post yesterday: our minds are too small to get wrapped around the Atonement with any single idea. We need a variety of images to even begin to talk about the depth of this very center of scripture.

Alex:

It denies vague and nebulous things like “modernity” and “commercialism” but fails to posit the alternative.

Doesn’t non-commercialism have a positive value in itself? Isn’t there a base “realness” that’s left when you strip away the falsehoods? If you removed the Purpose Drivel from a church, what would you have left? Just a church. If you remove “modernism” from “modern christianity” what do you have left?

There is a positive alternative arising from simple deconstruction. We’re not leveling the building, just taking a few floors off the top.

Our good Canadian friend, Richard, has written a piece on “Why I (probably) Won’t See The Passion.” It’s posted at michaelspencer.us, but it is also here on our server. It’s a different point of view that needs to be heard.

I hope someone has noticed that I’ve tried to present links and comments from a lot of different points of view on this movie.

And guess what Rob at DR said today:

With all the interest surrounding Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, it is good to remember that it is (uniquely) the WORD of the cross-the explication of its meaning through propositional language- that God uses to bring people to faith. The Apostle Paul makes that clear in his first letter to the Corinthians. While a filmed depiction of our Lord’s “passion” might move us emotionally, it cannot communicate it’s essential meaning.

I’m thinking of sending a picture of a crucified man to some unreached tribe and see if Christianity has taken root by next year. (JN)

Got some tin foil?
Have a hat?
get ready…read

Scary thing for me, I admit I believe some conspiracy theories.

Jim,
Thanks for the heads up, I did not realize the sidebar was static. Thanks for fixing my addy also.

Editor: I left it up for three hours. I think that’s fair. I appreciate it PW. I really do, but I need to become a better Christian, and this must be the way.

Michael: You shouldn’t cut up your diploma just yet. “Postmodern” refers more to the temporal station of the movement rather than any of its content. Any idea or concept labeled “postmodern” is labeled as such because it arose after the modern period. Simply because an idea arose after the modern period does not therefore imply that it had never been raised before. Qoholeth says there is nothing new under the sun, and I agree with him there.

So, in the case of the so-called “postmodern aesthetic,” there are elements of it that share much in common with the premodern aesthetic; of course, there are elements that are not shared either.

Art (broadly construed to include things like music and film) does have a psychological impact on human beings. In fact, something that you learn in design school is the emotional impact that various colors have on people. Red, for instance, stirs up the emotions whereas blue calms them down. Sharply angled lines give the feeling of rigidity whereas curves give the feeling of fluidity and even otherworldliness. The postmodern and the premodern use such experiences to transcend the physical world and “hook into” the mystical. Icons do this, for instance. Now, it seems to me, one can err in one of two directions. One can hook into the mystical to the point where one becomes a Gnostic. Or one can focus so much attention on the object causing the experience that one commits idolatry.

Phillip: That is my biggest problem with postmodernism; it refuses to stake out any claim or territory. It is anoetic and unapologetic (in the sense that it doesn’t defend any truth claims). It denies vague and nebulous things like “modernity” and “commercialism” but fails to posit the alternative. This bothers me, because Christianity has always been about staking out territory and debating claims. The first four hundred years of the Church’s existence was fraught with arguments and debates. Martyrs shed their blood in defense of the claim that “Jesus is Lord.” And that isn’t something I see postmodern Christians doing. Where does the Lordship of Christ factor into their “spirituality?” How about doctrine? And it is a terrible argument to say, “well, that’s just the fruit of modernity.” Why? Because a) that claim is false b) it commits the genetic fallacy and c) it entirely avoids my question. Others will claim that such things are “irrelevant.” But what could be more relevant thatn Christ crucified, risen and ruling? Isn’t that the Gospel?

Bah. I’m not postmodern. I’ve decided.

Michael: You mentioned the art at Beeson divinity school in Birmingham, AL. My wife was a student there when we were seeing each other. I have seen the art in the school. I was impressed and intrigued with the artistic likenesses of the reformers in the sanctuary. I was also intrigued that a theological department at a Baptist school was taking an interest in the reformation. I was glad to see it.

I picked up the ” The Passion ” today. It is the book of still photographs taken on the sets of the film. Melody looked at the photos, winced at the brutality and then said the reality of the brutality was probably even more horrifying than the depiction in the photos. The words of Isaiah 53 have always been poignant and piercing.

Years ago I asked a question in a Baptist sunday school class about the cross of Christ. I asked why the punishment for our sins had to be so brutal. One of the girls in the class sweetly told me that “Jesus had to die for our sin”. I said nothing, but she did not answer the question. The only conclusion I have been satisfied with is that my sins are that offensive to a Holy God. I daresay that most of humans, Christians included, do not fully comprehend the depth of our sin or the holiness of God or the resultant chasm that exists between God and man. Such a conclusion fills me with a fear and horror that I have difficulty with. Only the gospels with their message of Jesus’ sacrifice, resurrection, and forgiveness allows me to deal with this fear at all.

C’mon Judd. Let’s keep the ball in the air.

When the events happened, the Roman Centurian said “This man is the son of God.” And he didn’t have the Gospels to tell him to say it!!! BUT WAIT!!! That story is in the Gospels!! If it weren’t for the gospels, we wouldn’t know it happened. But, of course, the Gospels weren’t written yet, so we don’t need the Gospels to understand the movie. Even though the movie is made- mostly- from the Gospels.

Have I travelled back in time yet? Is this like “Somewhere in Time,” that if I stare at a penny long enough, I’ll be flirting with a sexy Jane Seymour in 1912? Or it’s like Bill and Ted, and I’m in the phone booth. Or “A Kid In King Arthur’s Court” and I hit my head and now we’re all back in time. Or maybe Harvey the Rabbit is right outside the door.

Josh:

I’m still trying to find where Michael said or implied “the film is incapable of explaining the content of the Gospels.”

You have a fascinating style of discourse. I’d call it “drive-by conversation.” But hey, this is the internet, right? And it’s a tavern, right? No need to be too careful, or worry too much about caricature or overstatement. Just take two or three words, construct a universe of meaning out of them, and pontificate about how they all really point to some ultimate false worldview.

I think you’re still more Reformed than you’d like to admit. You often sound like some of the worst presuppositional apologists I’ve read.

Try this kind of thing out on your future wife sometime. She’ll really appreciate it.

I had a very nice post written, but Windows Explorer ate it. Trust me, it was wonderful. It would have brought about world peace and even caused Michael and Josh to embrace each other as long-lost brothers. Jack would have let go with all of the anguish he has been bottling up over the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Jenny would have converted to her 5th? 6th? 7th? denomination. Tim would have joined a church. Jim would have embraced the canon and the Orthodox church’s authority over Scripture.

No wait, scratch that last one.

Anyway, most of it was for Jack. My problem with “icons” has mainly to do with the way they are treated in the Orthodox church. RCC/LCMS/others may differ. In the Orthodox church, icons are not treated as art. I’ve got no problem with art. Though there isn’t a painting of Christ in my house, there was one growing up, and it doesn’t bother me. But Orthodox iconographers aren’t creating art, not by any stretch of the imagination.

For starters, iconographers are not said to “paint” icons, but to “write” them. They compare the process to that of copyists copying Scripture, back when we did that sort of thing by hand. The form and style is very strictly proscribed in every way. It isn’t art, but icons are elevated to the level of Scripture itself, as evidenced by the comparison I already mentioned.

I made a stronger case for that in my original post, but I can’t look up the links twice, sorry.

Most of all I’m concerned because, as I mentioned to Jenny in a comment, mankind has shown themselves over and over and over again to be untrustworthy with images of God. Within a very few years, the people of Israel would again put their faith into things they could see and feel rather than the invisible God. So Mark painted an icon. And Peter didn’t want to be seen with Gentiles. So? Because one of the apostles did something in the first century, I must believe that it is right, despite the fact that we have four gospels full of them making (it seems) every stupid mistake in the book?

I don’t have a problem with remembering the saints that have gone before, so long as we remember that we are all saints, all able to approach God’s throne on Christ’s merit, simply because that is the way God made things. I’ve taught my kids about Nicholas of Myra and Chrysostom, and I’ll cover more as time goes by. I always remind them that these are men, prone to make mistakes as all men do, and as we do.

Jenny has suggested that the snake Moses held up in the wilderness is like an icon. I understand why Michael sometimes feels there is simply no way to respond. That is so completely off the charts of comprehensibility that I don’t quite know what to say. This isn’t even apples and oranges, it’s grapes and tire irons. To read that story and miss the clear image of Christ lifted up on the cross boggles the mind. Please tell me you didn’t really mean that!

Because Peter was crucified upside-down (sure, I believe it, why not?), we should all kiss Elvis-on-velvet daily? I should arise every morning, light a candle and pray a series of pre-written prayers? No, church tradition is useful and interesting, but it must be subject to Scripture, not the other way around.

Russell/Alex: If postmodernism is defined by what it isn’t (modern evangelicalism), instead of what it is (???), then it isn’t really anything. An “aesthetic” that extends back 1600-1900 years is hardly “post-modern.” Post-modernity wishes! Main attraction? Style over substance is a main attraction?

Post-modernism is Zwinglian.

I’ll have to write more later since I’m about to go eat but here are a couple of observations:
1) Seriously, if you’re going to show a movie at least make one batch of popcorn. Sheesh!
2) Not nearly as violent as the a**hat media it making it out to be. It’s nowhere near as violent as many movies that I have seen. NC-17? Give me a break!
3) Mary (Jesus’ mum) asks a question that I’m pretty sure most people won’t recognize, but was very touching and a brilliant script move.
4) I can’t believe that there was so much “stunned silence” after some of the screenings. Anyone familiar with the Gospels shouldn’t be THAT surprised.
5) I was more touched by Mary’s pain for her son’s suffering than anything else.
6) I was surprised at how much Aramaic I understood. What’s up with that?
7) Monica Bellucci—mama mia!

You know, I remember this one guy after just watching the events of the Passion saying “Surely this man was the Son of God!” Paul hadn’t even converted yet.

Don’t worry. The Lutheran Confessions already have clarified that all Calvinists, Catholics, Baptists, Wesleyans, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals, and auto mechanics are heretics.

Seriously, though. Don’t blame me for the Reformed departure from the previous 1.5 millenia of orthodoxy on the matter of the Incarnation. I mean, what am I supposed to say? “Nah, that doesn’t matter…believe and preach what you want. We all feel good about Jesus here.”

The story is Biblical content. Just the way that the Evangelists deliver the story is already an interpretation…before you even read Paul, you’ve already got four interpretations of the story. Mel offers another, and I am hoping that it is consistent with the original four and Paul’s. Redemption and salvation are stories.

I’ll agree: if the script contains no biblical content, then it won’t really say anything about the Gospel. I can think of several such films: “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” Disney’s “Cinderalla,” and “Men in Black.” However, I’m pretty sure that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ qualifies as biblical content.

A FILM OF THE EVENTS cannot tell us anything without the Bible’s content and proclamation of the meaning of the story.”

Without information from the Bible, the movie cannot tell us what the death of Jesus means. We will simply draw our own conclusions or be led to conclusions by the script. If the script contains no Biblical content, we won’t know what the significance of Jesus death means.

I cannot believe I am having this conversation. Is what I said really that controversial or am I just too easy a target to ignore?

I had a feeling the intro of the WCF would clarify that all Presbys are heretics in their Christology. That certainly simplifies things.

Michael: So how is film incapable of explaining the content of the Gospels? Can the Gospels only be explained using propositional statements? By the way, I (along with the Lutheran churches) reject Article VII of Chapter 8 of the WCF as heresy, which is kind of the hinge the whole discussion swings on.

Phillip: Since when do peoples wash by completely submerging themselves under the water, then coming back up? “Immersion” and “submersion” don’t necessarily mean the same thing. Archaeological evidence shows that the the early Christians used a lot of water, but it was poured all over the person, as opposed to dunking. This makes sense, given that the Jewish purifcation rituals were done by pouring water over the hands and such—dunking your hands in the bowl would make the water unclean.

And yes, icons can become idols. What frustrateds me about the Orthodox is that they apparently completely deny that an icon can ever become an idol for something, and that it would be wise to take measures to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Can someone remind me who was looking for a picture? And where can I find archives of this blog, esp. searchable?

My favorite online movie critic (Berardinelli) gives “Passion” a favorable review. I have mixed apprehension and excitement about the movie, but I am sure that I’ll see it regardless.

Bill Mac: We gothcha a Catholic to argue with. Now cheer up. :-)

Jenny: I can’t respond, and if you are going to team up with Josh. I may not be able to. By responding to his post I have broken a major vow. But it is the day before Lent, so if there is a time to do it, this was it. But no more.

Alex: Philosophy major. Help me here. Twenty somethings calling a pre-modern classical view of art postmodern? Help me here. I am about to shred my entire education.

Everyone: The MOVIE IS THE BIBLE. I quit ;-)

and write TOO fast!

Sorry, I should have editted better… hurries away from the computer to stir the Split Pea soup on the stove.

Hi Guys:

Michael,

I surely hope you don’t believe that I was asserting that you propose banning art. I do understand that you know Church history :-). I was desiring to communicate the source of the tension may be viewing religious art as a sacramental.

What I was trying to say is that even though the visiual expressions of faith were not widely created by those within the Early Church, that upon examining their historical surroundings we might just not have to argue against the developement of their importance and use within the Church. The cross explained and not detailed? Well… Says who? Why not? The Catholic Church regards pondering the details as a good thing.

Moot? I was trying to communicate that even these word-for-words are open to interpretation by the creators of the work; whether it be a work based on ONE gospel or a synopsis of four. I am not even saying that any interpretaion is wrong. Heck, it may just hit the bullseye! You make a strong statement that the film does not meet your high standard to proclaim that it is “most faithful”, yet shouldn’t we see it first as we ponder and pray? If you still hold the same position, well cherries on cheesecake :O).

btw, I think even if all agreed regarding the orignal text, individuals aren’t necessarily going to even “hear” the same thing. I believe that is is why there arose controversies and the subsequent clarification by the early councils. I don’t like your equation and its sum, I just don’t believe the it necessitates the a result of “another gospel”. I just think it may be smart to open yourself to the possibility that the result may instead be increase of our own ability to to better understand it.

Also, I am just curious as to why is it seems (from what you have written) an automatic debunk to even ponder the credibility of the claim because the extrabiblical sources it draws from are Catholic Tradition or the writings of differing Catholic mystics and theologians or “flawed” historians. ... (deep breath and really not hopin’ to step on toes)... isn’t that prejudice?

Perhaps (I have yet to see it) it may just be the most orthodox pictoral presentation we have seen in the relatively short century we have had of cinematic art. Should we really disqualify it from this possible distinction without hanging out and meditating on it for awhile?

From what I have read, the Church encourages theologians to deeply ponder these types of works, that the people of God can enter more deeply into the work of redemption. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church #573 (Green hurley icons gonna off all over the place, you guys are great though!):

“Faith can therefore try to examine the circumstances of Jesus’ death, faithfully handed on by the Gospels and illuminated by other historical sources, the better to understand the meaning of redemption”.

Josh:

I agree with what you wrote.

Phillip,

Thanks for the welcome. From the first time I linked on to his page from Pipertalk a number of years back, I knew Michael had something special here :O).

I think its interesting to distinguish that at Sinai the people looked at the bull under the assumption “THIS is your god, who delivered you out of Egypt” (Idolatry). The other instance of a forged metalic image in the desert involved very different circumstances as you know. With this image, as the people looked, they were delivered (not Idolatry).

Gee, does this not call for a distinction between the two? With one, we have Moses throwing tablets, with the other he’s holding the pole (so to speak).
I have no problem believing God communicated His grace through the gaze of faith in of the people upon the bronze serpant, which He commanded be crafted.
They were looking to Him yet still looking at this metalic image. I see a difference. St. Luke was a good doctor now c’mon ;O) and being the romantic that I am, I would like to believe the tradition as I also like to believe that St. Peter was crucified upside down.

Grace and Peace,
Jenny

Sure Michael. Jack’s apparent rejection of silly evangelicalism in favor of an ancient approach to a fuller Christianity is one of the hallmarks of the postmodernist minsitry paradigm. That’s one of the main attractions.

Let me clarify what Russell said. Jack made a case for a postmodern aesthetic in the Church (instead of a stuffy, icon-hating Protestant anti-aesthetic or an imitative evangelical aesthetic).

Heck, I like art in the Church. I think the reason the Reformers reacted so violently to art was not because they were mean guys, but they realized that the average Joe did not view pieces of art qua art, but instead viewed pieces of art as objects to worship. Hence, that statue of Mary posed a real danger to the souls of the flock.

However, if art is used to focus devotion on God (and isn’t itself the object “aimed at”), then it should be allowed.

But there is much more to postmodernity than the aesthetic. There’s a whole underlying philosophy, which I am coming to dislike more and more.

Post-modern?

?????

Jack Heald, thanks for making the case for postmodernist ministries in the 3:22 p.m. post.

Amanda’s 26? Wow, I just turned 25 on Saturday. Happy birthday Amanda, and Mrs. Ken B.

As it relates to ART, I agree with Jack totally. If you are ever in Birmingham, go to the Beeson Divinity School Chapel and see what protestants can do with art when they want to. Dr. George had the chapel built with church history everywhere. It’s wonderful. (And I can’t find any good pics.) But devotion to icons seems a different matter. That seems to be going beyond the proper response to art to some confusion between art and “artist” so to speak. But I have velvet bulldogs playing poker in my church, so what do I know.

I got my worldview adjusted about icons when I started learning a little about the Eastern Orthodox church. Those of us raised in intensely protestant environs were taught that ICONS=IDOLATRY and that, ladies and germs, was that.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that icons in the sanctuary could actually serve as an encouragement, as a tool to help focus our minds, as a reminder of a godly suffering.

I attended Evensong at Salisbury Cathedral one day and began to realize how flat and dry and impoverished my experience of christianity was. Oh sure, we had words in a book, and happy-clappy songs and amazingly crappy banners and stupid skits. What we didn’t have was a palpable connection to 2000 years of christian faithfulness around the world, no sense of ownership in the work of the best and the most profound thinkers and artists that Christendom had produced.

It was okay to wear a WWJD bracelet, but praying the rosary was verboten. OK to quote Rick Warren and sing Jesus is My Boyfriend pop-artisit-du-jour, but it was just plain freaky to quote Augustine and listen to Hildegard von Bingen.

I began to suspect that maybe I was believing some things that were maybe not true. I still suspect that…

PWinn: Please don’t reference a book of the Bible as “Josh.” I know it’s probably a good idea, but I just can’t buy into it yet. (JN)

Anyone out there read the books of Theodore Beale? I’m looking for some kind of review that will help me see how they are similar or different from Peretti.

Why is it, that after so many recent events that brought evangelicals to high visibility, the media still can’t seem to “see” evangelicals in the culture?

In all The Passion fluff, some very good things. Brent Bozell, who normally grates on me, hits the ball dead center or how Hollywood views this film and those who will go to see it. Meanwhile, over at NRO, Joel Rosenberg talks about how Jewish Christians view the film, and his experience being interviewed for Nightline.

I’m pretty impressed with the Mclean Bible Church Web site. Very sharp.

Amy Welbourne is releasing a book that answers the issues in The DaVinci Code. I’ll be getting a copy for a friend.

I meant to respond to an earlier post about baptizmo and I never got around to it. First of all I’ll say that I don’t think that one must dunk to be baptized, though clearly the normal pattern of Scripture and early tradition involves more than a bowl of water. So in one sense, I don’t have a horse in this race. But I must object to the idea of listing verses indicating that baptizmo does not normally mean immersion. As Michael said, it doesn’t always have to mean the same thing, but…

(I’m going back to Josh’s source, David Heddle for this list.)

Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh will be restored to you and you will be clean.” (2 Kings 5:10)

This seems to be acknowledged as generally referring to complete immersion or thorough washing — more than sprinkling — so I’ll leave it alone.

“Immediately the word concerning Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled; and he was driven away from mankind and began eating grass like cattle, and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair had grown like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ claws. (Dan 4:33)

Does “drenched” mean completely immersed? It’s a debatable point, sure, but I don’t think that the ardent Baptists should concede it easily. From a purely English perspective, “damp” would have worked better than “drenched” if the translators hadn’t wanted to get across the idea of a lot of wet.

and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil. (Lev 4:17)

In this case, baptizmo refers to the dipping of the finger, not the sprinkling of the blood. Clearly, the finger was actually dunked into, or immersed, in the blood. To sprinkle blood on the finger to then sprinkle it elsewhere beggars belief.

“As for the live bird, he shall take it together with the cedar wood and the scarlet string and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was slain over the running water. (Lev 14:6)

For both Josh and his source, this seems to be the big one. How can the blood of one bird immerse two birds? Well, let’s back up a verse, shall we? Leviticus 14: 5 says that the bird is to be killed in an earthenware vessel over fresh water. Is there not then enough blood-and-water to submerge the birds? It certainly seems like there could be.

At mealtime Boaz said to her, “Come here, that you may eat of the bread and dip your piece of bread in the vinegar.” So she sat beside the reapers; and he served her roasted grain, and she ate and was satisfied and had some left. (Ruth 2:14)

When I go to Romano’s Macaroni Grill, I ask for extra loaves of bread and end up pouring my own “extra” oil and pepper. Personally, I don’t completely immerse my pieces of bread, but my kids do. So did Boaz invite her to completely submerge the bread in the vinegar, or just dunk it a little? We can’t possibly know, but it seems certain that she wasn’t to sprinkle vinegar on the bread.

and when those who carried the ark came into the Jordan, and the feet of the priests carrying the ark were dipped in the edge of the water (for the Jordan overflows all its banks all the days of harvest), (Josh 3:15)

The feet of the priests seem to have been submerged into the edge of the water rather than having it poured or sprinkled, no?

But Jonathan had not heard when his father put the people under oath; therefore, he put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth, and his eyes brightened. (1 Sam 14:27)

Was the end of staff sprinkled with honey, or was it submerged in honey? The text indicates it was submerged, I think.

So is it definitive? No, of course not. At best, it’s a long list of examples, and doctrine-by-example isn’t my favorite. But the examples seem to clearly point to immersion, a point that seemed to be missed earlier.

And I’m still a borderline paedo-baptist. What day of the week is it? Tuesday? Then I’m a credo-baptist today.

Matthew: You mean there aren’t “Porpoise” study guides available as part of the overall marketing strategy? Unbelievable! Or is your church just too cheap to buy them and you get stuck re-inventing the wheel?

Amanda: HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Hope you’re having a great day!

I said “ONLY THE BIBLE explains the Gospel. A FILM OF THE EVENTS cannot tell us anything without the Bible’s content and proclamation of the meaning of the story.”

OK. No Biblical content. No Gospel. This is controversial?

A film must have Biblical content to tell us the meaning of the death of Jesus. This is controversial?

...if you’re going to be particularly dogmatic about insisting that ONLY THE BIBLE explains the Gospel, then you’re going to have to believe that preaching, too, is incapable of explaining the Gospel, unless that preaching consists entirely of reading the book of Romans out loud.

Is this the all-time greatest example of a non-sequitor or what? According to this deft analysis, my view is: Preaching, which is humanly proclaiming the content of the Bible, is incapable of explaining the Gospel, because it’s not just reading the Bible. (I am a raw Biblicist, you see. It’s obvious.) Explaining the content of the Bible doesn’t explain the Gospel? Man, I REALLY wasted my time at seminary. But I already knew that. I learn it regularly on here.

That sort of raw biblicism makes me extremely uncomfortable, although perhaps it’s your ideal. Great. Something I never said, never thought and never hinted at is my ideal, because it was discerned in the above comment on the Bible explains the Gospel. Can this become a regular feature? Let’s call it, “You don’t know what you REALLY said, but I DO. Let me explain!”

OK. I’m sorry I didn’t say that Gibson’s movie is equal to the Bible. Let’s just clear the deck. I’m just so sorry that when it comes to exactly what is and is not authoritatively scripture, I prefer my Bible over anything else. Knowing the difference between the Bible and things based on someone’s reading of the Bible is such a drag. That “raw Biblicism” is my ideal. I just get way too hung up over what is and is not the Bible.

And by the way, in most of your comments, you seem to have completely separated the Son of God taking on the sins of the world from his suffering in the flesh. That’s not orthodox theology.

I haven’t COMPLETELY SEPARATED anything. I made some distinctions that I believe matter. I am saying that the mediation of Jesus does not totally equal only the visible sufferings of Jesus. This irritating “gotcha” hacked me off so bad I read Westminster Section VIII at least ten times today. I believe it all. So say whatever you want. My conscience is fine.

I also believe this last paragraph in the article on “Atonement” in the New Dictionary of Theology:

There are other ways of looking at it. In modern times some have given emphasis to the concept of sacrifice, others draw attention to Jesus’ abandonment by the Father (Mark 15:34). But no theory has won universal acceptance and it is probably true that none ever will. Christ’s atoning work is so complex and our minds are so small. We cannot take it all in. We need the positive contributions of all the theories, for each draws attention to some aspect of what Christ has done for us. And though in the end we cannot understand it all, we can thankfully accept “so great salvation.” (Leon Morris)

May the Lord bless you with a joyous 26th birthday. Oh, to be so young again.

BTW, today is my wife, Beth’s 42nd birthday. Feb. 24 is a good day for the ladies, eh Kurt?

I guess I was thinking of the narrower definition of “icon,” as in the pictoral representations that are revered by the Eastern Orthodox. And I’ll refrain from talking about how unscriptural…oops!!

Josh, your church is obviously lacking one major icon. We will FedEx you the latest Rick Warren icon so that your church’s collection of influential saints will be complete.

(In some sick cosmic twist of fate, I’m am currently writing a “Study Guide” for our church’s 40 Days of Porpoise—yes, that means I have to read the whole book.)

According to the Orthodox Church of America, yes, you do have to kiss them. That is, repeated questions related to hygiene asking specifically “would priests tend to make this an issue of faith? Is kissing the icon significant versus just bowing or touching the icon reverently with your hand or forehead?” are answered with vague evasions and questions about the petitioners faith and spiritual health. Reminds me of some pentecostal churches, frankly, only their choice of idols tends to be “healing.”

Authors please note: Most of the material in the sidebar is “static”, that is, it’s not recreated from the database each time someone posts. That means that if you change your author info in the MT author’s interface (as Tim recently did with his email address), you have to let “one of the guys” know so that we will rebuild the author part of the page. The guys (AFAIK) include the iMonk, myself, Pwinn and Kurt. Just so you know. We apologize for the inconvienience, etc.

Michael: send me an AIM when you have a chance. We have some ideas. It won’t cost you anything. It will get better.

We’ve got 7 icons in the narthex of our church…or maybe it’s 9. Christ, some of the apostles, Timothy, Paul, Augustine, and Chrysostom.

My favorite RC printing house (check out their calligraphy) has a pretty huge selection of Icons (matted, on wood, etc.). We gave the priest who married us the one of Jesus washing the disciple’s feet, and a small one of Mother Theresa (he has a great affinity). Something warring within me…

You’re not required to kiss icons, either. The 7th Council’s definitions and applications are pretty broad, and it’s answering the question “What is permissible?” not “What is required?”

Since people are rarely required to kiss stained glass windows, I think I might categorize them separately. “Icons” != “art”.

East/West split was over filioque and papal power.

Statues and stained windows count as icons.

Tom, I may be mistaken, but I think that RC’s also use icons, although maybe not in the same way as the Eastern Church. Rome has at least some statues that might be considered iconic, but I’ll leave that to our current papist. Also, there were a ton of reasons for the split between the east and the west and most of it centered on the arrogant presumptions of the Bishop of Rome and his place in the church. Timothy Ware has a book out called The Orthodox Church published by Pengiun which gives a detailed look at the events leading up to the split. Very interesting…and no, Michael, that book wasn’t bedtime reading. It’s NT Wright ;-)

By the way, I think this film gives us a great opportunity to share the Gospel with the hordes of Campus Crusaders and Fundamentalists assaulting us with tracts as we leave the theater.

I’m going to have to flip out and go all crazy on everybody again, especially a statement of Michael’s:

“ONLY THE BIBLE explains the Gospel. A FILM OF THE EVENTS cannot tell us anything without the Bible’s content and proclamation of the meaning of the story.”

As I recall, the Evangelists wrote their accounts of the events that we might believe. There’s really no indication in any of the Gospels that the authors believed that their stories were not self-interpreting. Now the film doesn’t include the Last Supper (which provides the hermeneutic that the apostles used to understand the Cross); however, if you’re going to be particularly dogmatic about insisting that ONLY THE BIBLE explains the Gospel, then you’re going to have to believe that preaching, too, is incapable of explaining the Gospel, unless that preaching consists entirely of reading the book of Romans out loud. That sort of raw biblicism makes me extremely uncomfortable, although perhaps it’s your ideal.

Besides that, films are inherently interpretive. From what little I know of this movie, it’s not simply a documentary, but also an artistic presentation. The flashbacks, etc, all serve the purpose of presenting the message that Gibson wished to present. The suffering Son of God saying “Behold, I make all things new” is the Gospel. Sounds to me like Gibson’s got at least that much down.

And by the way, in most of your comments, you seem to have completely separated the Son of God taking on the sins of the world from his suffering in the flesh. That’s not orthodox theology.

Actually, I’m reasonably sure that the golden calf Aaron created whilst Moses was up on the mountain predates Luke’s “icon” by a good bit. :-)

Oh, and Welcome, Jenny. I joined up after you left before, I think.

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC

If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ’s love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us.

More »« Less

ASSORTED OBSERVATIONS:

Isn’t the whole “icon” thing more of an Eastern Orthodox practice than Roman Catholic? Isn’t that part of the reason those two branches of the church split lo those many years ago?

For those who would say that the depiction of Christ suffering and dying on the cross does not communicate the MEANING of his death and sacrifice for our sins: doesn’t the interpretation of what Christ accomplished come from the Epistles? And, let’s face it, a movie based on the book of Romans would be booooooring.

I’m sure Jack Chick does not approve of this movie, since it was made by a Roman Catholic.