A Response to Dr. Samuelle Bacchiocchi’s Review on “The Passion of the Christ”
Posted: April 8th, 2004 | Author: arnold | Filed under: Theology | View Comments(The following is my response to Dr. Samuelle Bacchiocchi’s article entitled “Mel Gibson’s Slaughter of Christ“. His article has circulated the internet thru email early March; I myself received several, mostly from Adventist friends and mailing lists. This response seems late especially for those of you who are based in North America. But I wanted to view the movie first, which was shown only last March 31st here in Manila, before writing a response)
Even before Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” came out last February, it has already drawn various reactions from different organizations and people. From a simple blogger (a netizen who journals his daily life thru a website) to Bible scholars. From journalists to government officials. From showbiz personalities to religious gurus. Everyone’s talking about their reactions on the film. Some positive. Some negative. But Dr. Samuelle Bacchiocchi’s review was different — not only that it is negative, it is, to my opinion, extremely negative and extremely biased to the point of judging Mel Gibson’s spirituality and calling him a “poor, lost, deluded soul”.
I received several forwarded emails — 3 to 4 of them — from friends and mailing lists. From the title itself — “… Slaughter of Christ”, you will recognize what it is about — a review that aims to discourage and/or caution people from viewing the film. In fact, it had affected me and my perception of the film to some degree. Our community had a scheduled special screening April 3 with about 440 movie goers coming. And when I read his article, I even had a second thought of supporting it. We went thru with it anyway. It was successful, and this response is the product of it.
I first met Dr. Sam back in college (around 1993 at Adventist University of the Philippines, formerly Philippine Union College). I saw first hand his brilliance as an Adventist theologian. While I now disagree with some of his theological conclusions, I still feel unworthy of responding to his lengthy and scholarly review of the film. Nonetheless, I believe it is worth to have a non-scholarly response for those who have read and considered his points.
A Biased Mind
Dr. Sam, before releasing the said review, published a previous negative review of the film — that is, reviewing it without watching it first. Of course, that’s not the way it should be, so according to him he received several reactions. When he finally decided to watch the film, I can imagine him bringing a notebook and a pen with him. He might have watched the movie for one reason — not to see the merits of the film, or not to even simply enjoy it but, — to find faults in it.
He mentioned listing down the “errors” of the film and filling up the entire page. My wife and my self’s favorite date is watching a movie. And I never go inside a movie house with a pen and paper. No wonder, he has only faults to say for the film.
Anti-Catholic
Here’s a word to describe his review: anti-Catholic. But that’s predictable. He is known for being anti-Catholic in his books and symposiums. He discredits the movie by Mel Gibson’s being a Catholic, its Catholic sources, the prominent roles of Mary in the film and some scenes that are not read in the Bible while being part of Catholic tradition.
I’m not a Catholic myself. I don’t agree with most of their doctrines including their traditions and their especial treatment of Mary. Having said that, I should say, I can understand Mel Gibson for inserting some Catholic biases in the movie. The reason: because he is a Catholic. He is influenced by his belief system. If Dr. Sam will be asked to direct a movie about the end time events, I’m sure he will insert Adventist biases around the film. The biases may not be found in the Bible, but nonetheless, he will interpret it with Adventist eschatology. And sure it will contradict with Lahaye’s “Left Behind”!
But that does not mean Mel Gibson’s effort does not have anything good at all as what Dr. Sam wants to portray. I watched the film two times. I was moved every time I watched it. As I spoke with friends who watched the film, nobody commented about the supposed Catholic biases. No one mentioned about Mary’s special role in the film. All I heard were questions and comments about Jesus. It’s never easy to talk about Jesus to ordinary people until they watched “The Passion…” Can we conclude then that only simple minded people, those that entered the movie houses to “watch” and not to criticize, can really appreciate this film?
The people in Jesus’ time asked “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46 NLT) Catholics? Can anything good come from them? Dr. Sam seems to have an answer.
Petty “errors”
Dr. Sam gave real extra effort in listing down what he perceived as Gibson’s errors. He started with the “unbiblical” appearance of a snake, represented by Satan, at the Garden of Gethsemane. He argued that this scene wasn’t in the Gospels. The director, on the other hand, must have referred to Gen. 3:15b, “…he will crush your head… “.
He even faulted the garden for being seen like an abandoned field and Jesus looking dirty while praying (I wonder how someone will look like after sweating with blood). The physical appearance of Satan in the form of a woman, the riot between Jews and Romans, Christ being thrown off the bridge, the part of some children in that scene with Judas, and more. Those were never in the gospels, and so those were wrong, he criticizes.
Paraphrased Bibles are those that are written by authors according to their understanding of Biblical passages. While we cannot use it for deep study and more so, consider it as “the” Bible, I love reading paraphrased Bibles for devotional. The Message Paraphrase is one of those that I like.
Mel Gibson’s film is simply like that. An Adventist pastor friend of mine commented that he likened the “Passion…” movie as that of a paraphrased Bible. A lot of the scenes have been inserted for cinematography purposes. Gibson uses his keen mind on details to portray the last twelve hours of Jesus. Dr. Sam doesn’t seem to give Mr. Gibson the liberty of “paraphrasing” the events according to his experience as a director.
Too much brutality
Too brutal, it’s not in the gospels, says Dr. Sam. But how I wish the gospel writers went into the details on how Jesus suffered. But they didn’t. Not that it wasn’t brutal, but they just didn’t write about it. Until we meet Jesus face to face and asked the details ourselves, we are left with our own historical research, and in most cases, our imagination. In my mind, I was thinking that it could have happened worse than Gibson’s. I don’t know. But at least, we can now visualize a “typical” of the sufferings of Christ.
Dr. B even sounded judgmental to me when he said that the reason why Gibson made it as brutal is that “relentless brutality sells movies”. I’m not here to defend Gibson, but we know the story, folks.
Potential for Evangelism?
Is “The Passion of the Christ” a potential for evangelism? Dr. Sam’s answer is yes. The approach? Tell people that the “Catholic film” is wrong about the brutality and the traditions inserted to it. Tell them that Mary does not have a prominent role as portrayed in the movie. Tell the people, the movie is wrong!
May I suggest another way to make use of the film for evangelism? How about telling them about Jesus, why does he have to die? Why die a painful death? What does his death mean to us?
Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church has created a 3-session evangelistic CD for group studies based on the movie. We are blessed by their passion to find ways to communicate the unchanging gospel to the changing world instead of fault finding. With the help of our local Purpose Driven Ministries Philippines, we were able to get hold of the series and we are implementing it for our church.
In our first session, we had a couple who testified that, after watching the movie, they felt that there is something lacking in them. And they have to find out what it is. The first thing that came into their mind is our invitation for this study. And so they went. Indeed, the film leaves a vacuum, and people wanted something to fill it in. And telling them about Jesus is the answer. Now’s the best time to tell them.
The song “Don’t forget the Sabbath” was written by Fanny Cosby. The “Sabbath” that she meant there wasn’t Saturday Sabbath but Sunday Sabbath. Reason? Because she was a Sunday sabbatarian. But why is it that the song is being sung by Adventists on Saturdays? Because they found a new meaning in it. While the song was not intended to be sung on Saturdays, it is written in SDA hymnal because there is something good about the song.
An admittedly Catholic influenced movie such as “The Passion…” has something good in it. In fact, in my personal viewing, it has a great way of moving a person. It personally benefited me. It’s making people talk about Jesus — openly. I don’t know what Mr. Gibson’s purpose for making the film is. But one thing I am sure of, God’s hand is in it.
So, friends, watch the film. If you’re in the Philippines, the showing will run until next week, after holy week. Don’t depend on reviews, just watch it and you can judge for your self. After watching it, I suggest you join a study group. Find one in your area. If you’re within Makati area, we’re meeting every Monday at 7 pm for “The Passion, The Purpose and the Person of Jesus” group series. Email me for details if you want to join.