Super Bowl Sunday And The Next Big Thing

[Pastor Gary]

Isn't there a difference between the times God says to do something and when some guy decides to do it for himself?

That presupposes that God didn't work through the guy who wrote "Prayer of Jabez" or "Purpose Driven..." and I am not ready to say He didn't. Is it entirely possible that God leads us into new understanding in bits and pieces, using a book here, a work of art there, maybe a movie, in order to lead us along? Just possibly?

I think you are missing his point. He isn't opposed to people getting blessed by the movie or God using it, but rather to idolatry and chasing after false gods in the form of experience, which I think you have to admit happens with this sort of thing a lot, and which I have read your words decrying on this site, or at least one of the other two.

I admit I am on Cold Meds and kind of fuzzy-headed today.

Maybe. I also am suspicious of the flashy bandwagon passing by. I think the longtime Jude2 folks know I can be a skeptic. I might agree with some of his general ideas but disagree with some of his examples. Not sure.

Now you're just being mean. What happened, did Dave gore a sacred cow or something?

That's possible. I saw the Gibson movie, have high hopes for the evangelistic outreach impact of it, and (personally) believe the Holy Ghost is working through Mel Gibson in this instance.

Sorry about your cow...

We all have them, don't we? Can't eat steak without killing them sometimes.

[Mike Vande]

That presupposes that God didn't work through the guy who wrote "Prayer of Jabez" or "Purpose Driven..." and I am not ready to say He didn't.

Don't kow that I am either, but I am suspicious of slickly packaged stuff that makes a heavy profit.

Is it entirely possible that God leads us into new understanding in bits and pieces, using a book here, a work of art there, maybe a movie, in order to lead us along? Just possibly?

Yep. And it is just as possible that things like that aren't what God intended, but ends up using anyway. It's like Samson; God used him to destroy all the Phillistine government and military leaders, but he died still ruled by his own will instead of submitted of God's. What good would you say it did him that he did such mighty works when his final prayer was to die?

I admit I am on Cold Meds and kind of fuzzy-headed today.

Sorry to hear that, be healed in the Name of Jesus.

I also am suspicious of the flashy bandwagon passing by. I think the longtime Jude2 folks know I can be a skeptic. I might agree with some of his general ideas but disagree with some of his examples. Not sure.

It may or may not be worth your time to figure it out, but I think you ought to give it a go.

I saw the Gibson movie, have high hopes for the evangelistic outreach impact of it, and (personally) believe the Holy Ghost is working through Mel Gibson in this instance.

I really hope you're right about it. I think Dave hopes so too, but he seems to believe he has reason to doubt it.

Sorry about your cow...

We all have them, don't we? Can't eat steak without killing them sometimes.

And I love a good steak, as you well know. Hey! Figured out wat to send you as a demo; found a VHS tape of me and a band I was with a few years back, and I lead some worship for a bunch of kids. Hope to have it out of here in a few days...
Vande

[dave c]

Pastor Gary, I find your comments creative and refreshing. Anyone could take the time to write comments that actually reflect having read a paper before critiquing it, but it takes an artist to be able to strike swiftly, and with such deft strokes pierce right to the heart of what is apparently an issue in your own mind—all without being bothered with the subject at hand.

5th paragraph: “I think Mel Gibson is honestly trying to satisfy an urge that has driven him to make this movie. I pray that the spirit behind that drive is the Holy Spirit. I hope that I am wrong in my attitude and that millions are led to Christ. I know that it is being fed into a very efficient promotional campaign and I am reasonably sure it is this year’s Next Big Thing. Can God use this movie to advance His Kingdom, no matter the motive of mankind individually and collectively? Absolutely. The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice (Phil. 1:18NIV).”

Next to last paragraph: “Great art, even good art, doesn’t have to scream at you, or fly in your face—it suggests more than it states and there is a subtlety in its layers of experience and communication. As a culture, however, we are demanding more, and faster, and stronger of everything—with sexual situations, inappropriate language, social crudity, explicit verbal and physical violence, scatological “humor” (potty jokes), degrading depictions of individuals, and bigotry masquerading as “tolerance” heading up the list of apparently desirable and effectual entertainment “hooks.” It breaks my heart to see aspects of this same trend creeping into the sanctuary, up the aisle, and onto the platform of our churches—all in the name of becoming more relevant to our society...of becoming more comfortable for the worldly among us...of increasing our numbers. God forgive us.”

For the record: I have a BFA in Studio Art with over 30 years experience in visual arts as a painter/photographer/sculptor, 15 years as a professional graphic artist, I play drums in a Christian rock ‘n roll band (far, far from professionally), and I write a lot. Somehow, in spite of my inability to let Him inject Himself into daily life (particularly through cultural endeavors), God manages to use this curmudgeon in a number of ministries ranging from adult messages twice weekly, to children’s church, to jail visits several times per week--and I am generally regarded as being good humored and encouraging. Sometimes, too good humored.

While your repartee might be considered clever in your circle of influence, I find them effete. I was really hoping for helpful insight from those who are more interested in serious discussion about a serious subject than in displaying an ability to fabricate self-serving witticisms. It occurs to me that you display the very characteristics that you are attributing to me. Maybe that’s the raw nerve?

You are my brother in Christ, and I pray that, if not in this life, then certainly in the next, we will have a chance to sit down over a cup of coffee, or tea, or their divine equivalents and have a good laugh.

God bless you, friend,
dave c

[Pastor Gary]

Pastor Gary, I find your comments creative and refreshing.

Not if I understand the rest of your post.

Anyone could take the time to write comments that actually reflect having read a paper before critiquing it, but it takes an artist to be able to strike swiftly, and with such deft strokes pierce right to the heart of what is apparently an issue in your own mind—all without being bothered with the subject at hand.

Dave, this is a message board -- actually MY message board to be specific -- and Vande posted a message. What we do here is discuss things. If you want incisive analysis publish it as a thesis and defend it.

5th paragraph: “I think Mel Gibson is honestly trying to satisfy an urge that has driven him to make this movie. I pray that the spirit behind that drive is the Holy Spirit. I hope that I am wrong in my attitude and that millions are led to Christ. I know that it is being fed into a very efficient promotional campaign and I am reasonably sure it is this year’s Next Big Thing. Can God use this movie to advance His Kingdom, no matter the motive of mankind individually and collectively? Absolutely. The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice (Phil. 1:18NIV).”

Yeah. I read that. Twice now. You (sort of) laud the movie as (maybe) a God thing, then proceed to say you are "reasonably sure it is this year’s Next Big Thing" which is the critical premise of your writing. Dave giveth and Dave taketh away. Blessed be the name od Dave.

Next to last paragraph: “Great art, even good art, doesn’t have to scream at you, or fly in your face—it suggests more than it states and there is a subtlety in its layers of experience and communication.

Wow. Subtlety. Irony from a guy who plays drums in a Christian rock ‘n roll band, don't ya think?

As a culture, however, we are demanding more, and faster, and stronger of everything—with sexual situations, inappropriate language, social crudity, explicit verbal and physical violence, scatological “humor” (potty jokes), degrading depictions of individuals, and bigotry masquerading as “tolerance” heading up the list of apparently desirable and effectual entertainment “hooks.” It breaks my heart to see aspects of this same trend creeping into the sanctuary, up the aisle, and onto the platform of our churches—all in the name of becoming more relevant to our society...of becoming more comfortable for the worldly among us...of increasing our numbers. God forgive us.”

So, if I am reading you correctly, what you are objecting to in particular is that the brutalization and crucifixion of Christ, an act of unbelievable horror, is going to be portrayed without the sanitized "clean Jesus" sensibilities of past Jesus films? Okay. You have a right to that view. I disagree and hope sinners and backsliders under conviction vomit their extra-buttered popcorn in revulsion as the Holy Spirit convicts them of the fact that their sin is responsible for all that graphic bloodshed.

For the record: I have a BFA in Studio Art with over 30 years experience in visual arts as a painter/photographer/sculptor, 15 years as a professional graphic artist, I play drums in a Christian rock ‘n roll band (far, far from professionally), and I write a lot.

Great. we have much in common. My college major was Communication Graphics and I worked for 25 years+ as a professional Graphic Designer. I also play drums -- some say well. My fine arts skills are very rusty, much to my regret.

Somehow, in spite of my inability to let Him inject Himself into daily life (particularly through cultural endeavors), God manages to use this curmudgeon in a number of ministries ranging from adult messages twice weekly, to children’s church, to jail visits several times per week--and I am generally regarded as being good humored and encouraging. Sometimes, too good humored.

Again, commonality. I, too, stand before a congregation weekly and deliver the Word. I direct Youth Camps for kids/teens. I teach a Christian Character class at a local prison, and I too am generally regarded as being good humored and encouraging. Sometimes, too good humored. Those on this board who have met me like me, I hope.

While your repartee might be considered clever in your circle of influence, I find them effete.

Effete. Now there's a 50¢ word we don't see much around here. As for "my circle of influence..." -- friend, I wasn't trying to impress you or anyone else with my cleverness or lack there of. I was responding to a guy I have known for years on these boards (Vande) about the way his post was framed. I wasn't talking TO you or directly ABOUT you. You climbed in my car with your muddy shoes and changed the radio station.

I was really hoping for helpful insight from those who are more interested in serious discussion about a serious subject than in displaying an ability to fabricate self-serving witticisms.

Then why are you here?

It occurs to me that you display the very characteristics that you are attributing to me. Maybe that’s the raw nerve?

I'll be sure to let you know if you hit a raw nerve. You just did.
Having the arrogant effrontery to size up my characteristics by reading a few lines on a message board gets on my nerves a bit. Try not to do that.

You are my brother in Christ, and I pray that, if not in this life, then certainly in the next, we will have a chance to sit down over a cup of coffee, or tea, or their divine equivalents and have a good laugh.

I love a good cup of coffee, but if this is the way you treat your family...

[Pastor Gary]

My friend sent me this in response to my reply.

Mike,
thanx for responding so quickly and with good insights. I hope that I'm not coming down as saying that I'm opposed to good christian books, events, etc.--but I'm concerned that they are increasingly becoming more of a distraction from the personal witness of the Gospel.

Perhaps he is right on this as a generality -- my reservation was that he might be throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

One major dif between "major events" of the past is the sheer numbers of people who are reached by media that was way outside of imagination even 100 years ago. My major objection with this movie is that people like Stroble are saying that the quality of the production, the historic research, and the graphic "realism" makes it not just a better artistic production...BUT a must for all christians 12/13 up to see.

That "the sheer numbers of people who are reached by media that was way outside of imagination even 100 years ago" is a two-edged sword, don't you think? It also means those same means of mass communication and mass media can help accellerate the pace of spreading the Good News. We have pretty much blown that so far, I agree... I can't watch more than a few minutes of 'Christian TV' without revulsion. That's what I shield my kids from, not graphic depictions of the purchase of my salvation.

And, no, it is NOT a "must." My wife had to close her eyes through 90% of the film because she couldn't take the intensity.

I fear damaging some God given sensibilities in kids whose parents would never let them go to R movies or play M video games.

That is not a reason to lump the movie in as "the next big thing" -- it is a call for parental discretion. My 15-year-old daughter couldn't handle it; my 18-year-old son could.

I started out being more "for" than "against" this movie...but Sunday night/Monday morning my heart...and then my head began to take a dif position.

Have you seen it yet? If not, maybe you should post a follow-up after you do, if you do.

My hope is that maybe this paper can be a step toward balancing out the voices that are shouting endorsements--even if my platform is a small one. I plan on sending it to some national ministries.

You're welcome.
(You did mean that as a thanks for providing this platform, didn't you?)

[Mike Vande]

My friend sent me this in response to my reply.

Mike,
thanx for responding so quickly and with good insights. I hope that I'm not coming down as saying that I'm opposed to good christian books, events, etc.--but I'm concerned that they are increasingly becoming more of a distraction from the personal witness of the Gospel.

Perhaps he is right on this as a generality -- my reservation was that he might be throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Man, I am beginning to be very sorry I started this. Two of my favorite people in the world encounter each other for the first time, and they immediately go for each other's throats. NOT what I had hoped for, guys...

That "the sheer numbers of people who are reached by media that was way outside of imagination even 100 years ago" is a two-edged sword, don't you think? It also means those same means of mass communication and mass media can help accellerate the pace of spreading the Good News.

I can't say I think mass media and Christianity don't mix, but I have seen both lousy mixtures and good ones, and I think it's obvious to anyone who has been looking the last 20 years or so that limited dissemination saved the church a lot of embarassment and humiliation in the pre-TV days. I don't think I can really say that mass communication has irrevocably damaged the Gospel, but there are a lot of times I think it has gratuitously cheapened it and made it shallower in the minds of those it ought to have deepened with sound bytes under video clips, cheap huckster-style sloganeering, and doggerel lyrics set to three minute rock tunes instead of personal contact, reasoned discourse, and sound doctrine. I agree that it is at least theoretically possible for it to accelerate the pace of spreading the Gospel, but I sometimes wonder if the Gospel wasn't really intended to be a person-to-person thing, and attempts to juice it up with mass media aren't adulterating that part of it.

We have pretty much blown that so far, I agree... I can't watch more than a few minutes of 'Christian TV' without revulsion. That's what I shield my kids from, not graphic depictions of the purchase of my salvation.

And, no, it is NOT a "must." My wife had to close her eyes through 90% of the film because she couldn't take the intensity.

Somebody said earlier that even as graphic as the presentation is, it still isn't as bad as the real thing, where Jesus was reduced to a form that didn't even appear human. If that can't be shown (and maybe we should thank God that the technology isn't up to that challenge yet), How is it more than the special effects that were employed in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre in yet another movie about Jesus? I am beginning to wonder if that doesn't really cheapen the real thing somewhat; I am not sure of that, just musing on it, but if doesn't it seem that turning the Passion into a movie that, as graphic as it is, still doesn't really show the true extent of the injuries our Lord suffered necessarily make it less that it should be? You tell me, guys, I am at a loss to know what to think, really...

I fear damaging some God given sensibilities in kids whose parents would never let them go to R movies or play M video games.

That is not a reason to lump the movie in as "the next big thing" -- it is a call for parental discretion. My 15-year-old daughter couldn't handle it; my 18-year-old son could.

Gary, that's not fair. Dave gave different reasons for his statement on that.

I started out being more "for" than "against" this movie...but Sunday night/Monday morning my heart...and then my head began to take a dif position.

Have you seen it yet? If not, maybe you should post a follow-up after you do, if you do.

I think that is fair, but let's remember that an individual's subjective response to any experience is, by itself, insufficient grounds for lauding or villifiying it. There has to be more than simple experience.

My hope is that maybe this paper can be a step toward balancing out the voices that are shouting endorsements--even if my platform is a small one. I plan on sending it to some national ministries.
You're welcome.
(You did mean that as a thanks for providing this platform, didn't you?)

Dave can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he was talking about this site. He has moderated another Christian website for some time now, and has a mailing list of folks he regularly sends his papers to. I think that was the platform he was talking about.

Guys, I really want you two to like each other. Please give it another shot, okay?

Vande

Vande

[Pastor Gary]

How did you see the film? The website says there are 26 days left before its U.S. release. Just wondering.

Gibson has allowed/sponsored some pre-release screenings in several places. They are invitation-only, confidentiality agreement affairs for "Christian leaders." I was honored to be among Hawaii's Christian leaders and get an invitation for whatever reason.

The film was not in final edit form... some special-effects were not in place yet and the music was not the final form. (It was nice music but not perfectly matched yet.)

The film was beautifully shot and the acting was --I thought -- quite good. Heroes and villians were well-portrayed. Was it perfect? No. I am sure there are things to critique and maybe when I see it in final form and watch more closely the second time I'll find more issues, but I came away quiet and overwhelmed with Christ's love and sacrifice for me.

The beating scene was horrific to watch and went on (and on and on...) -- and we advised them to trim it in length. There were English subtitles that really helped (my Aramaic and Latin being rusty... ha ha)

That's the short version.

we have all been released from the non-disclosures, so if you have any questions I can answer, fire away.

[Pastor Gary]

Man, I am beginning to be very sorry I started this. Two of my favorite people in the world encounter each other for the first time, and they immediately go for each other's throats. NOT what I had hoped for, guys...

Gee, Mike, what do you think might have gone wrong here? I wasn't predisposed to dislike a guy I never met -- I just tossed out a first impression response to YOU about something YOU quoted. It wasn't meant to be an affront, and I didn't address him personally -- I was talking to you. I didn't call the guy a jerk, an idiot, a fool or even a bazoo... I just questioned his conclusion and discovered he doesn't enjoy that much, does he?

I can't say I think mass media and Christianity don't mix, but I have seen both lousy mixtures and good ones, and I think it's obvious to anyone who has been looking the last 20 years or so that limited dissemination saved the church a lot of embarassment and humiliation in the pre-TV days. I don't think I can really say that mass communication has irrevocably damaged the Gospel, but there are a lot of times I think it has gratuitously cheapened it and made it shallower in the minds of those it ought to have deepened... instead of personal contact, reasoned discourse, and sound doctrine.

A valid point worthy of exploration. TV, DVD's, chat rooms, Jude2 -- these are not a replacement for one-on-one personal relationships and discipleship. I might argue that they are supplementary, but not primary.

Somebody said earlier that even as graphic as the presentation is, it still isn't as bad as the real thing, where Jesus was reduced to a form that didn't even appear human.

I don't know. It was pretty horrible, man. That actor was a blood-covered, raw-hamburger mess with eyes swollen almost shut... pretty gruesome. Nobody knows photographically what the crucified Christ looked like, so we have to imagine from a written description.

If that can't be shown (and maybe we should thank God that the technology isn't up to that challenge yet), How is it more than the special effects that were employed in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre in yet another movie about Jesus? I am beginning to wonder if that doesn't really cheapen the real thing somewhat; I am not sure of that, just musing on it...

The guy who did the didgital Gollum in LOTR could do a pretty good job -- was that not amazing? I am told that he was the first digital character deaf viewers could accurately lip read.

...but if doesn't it seem that turning the Passion into a movie that, as graphic as it is, still doesn't really show the true extent of the injuries our Lord suffered necessarily make it less that it should be? You tell me, guys, I am at a loss to know what to think, really...

Reserve that judgement until you see the movie and then reflect what you think. (Am I the only one here who has seen the movie in pre-release? It would help to have a second opinion from another eye-witness.)

Gary, that's not fair. Dave gave different reasons for his statement on that.

Cold meds. That lost me. I am not sure what was unfair, but okay. I think I was agreeing with Dave that parents need to use discretion and not send a 12-year-old because it is a religious movie.

I think that is fair, but let's remember that an individual's subjective response to any experience is, by itself, insufficient grounds for lauding or villifiying it. There has to be more than simple experience.

How about subjective experience moved by the unction of the Holy Spirit? In the room I was in for the viewing I know of only 2 or 3 Pastors/Leaders who left with issues at the end... almost universally we were moved to tears and reflection on the great sacrifice He made for us.

Dave can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he was talking about this site.

I'm sure he wasn't, Mike. He didn't seem particularly happy to be here. Imagine that.

He has moderated another Christian website for some time now...

Sorry to hear that. I expect more out of him then in the way of posting courtesy. Wouldn't it have been nice to have read an introductory post in which he said "Hi" and told us a little of who he was before he bashed my brains in with a 2" x 4"? Really, Mike, oh caustic one -- my response to his article was FAR milder than many things you have posted here, and his reaction almost left me speechless. Almost.

...and has a mailing list of folks he regularly sends his papers to. I think that was the platform he was talking about.

He writes well. Is he unaccustomed to our Jude2 style of dialog? I mean, this is not a heavy Theological site... we discuss sick kids, motorcycles, COGOP gossip, AND, oh yeah, we debate some Theology.

Guys, I really want you two to like each other. Please give it another shot, okay?

That would be peachy; as soon as my wounds heal, I'd love to get to know him better. With all the things we have in common we might actually be buds, but we need to muzzle that Rottweiler first.

[Mike Vande]

How about subjective experience moved by the unction of the Holy Spirit?

How do you quantify that? What proof beyond the word of the person that it WAS the Holy Spirit and not their own emotions being manipulated by people who are experts at doing that?

In the room I was in for the viewing I know of only 2 or 3 Pastors/Leaders who left with issues at the end...

Out of curiousity, what issues did those two or three raise, and what was their denominational/doctrinal background?

almost universally we were moved to tears and reflection on the great sacrifice He made for us.

Dude, how many pastors/leaders and lesser lights came away from Pensacola ready to swear on their mother's grave that it was GOD AND GOD ONLY making it happen, and that it wasn't focused on manifestations in one breath and using the manifestations as evidence that it was the Holy Spirit in the next?

Really, Mike, oh caustic one -- my response to his article was FAR milder than many things you have posted here, and his reaction almost left me speechless. Almost.

Yeah, but you were FAR nastier than I've ever seen you. I am frankly worried that I am rubbing off on you, and I don't know if I could forgive myself for that. Gary, I am beginning to think this is more than just brain fog from cold meds. What's up with you, brah, you ain't the sarcastic sort, or didn't used to be. What has changed?

Vande

[Pastor Gary]

How about subjective experience moved by the unction of the Holy Spirit?

How do you quantify that? What proof beyond the word of the person that it WAS the Holy Spirit and not their own emotions being manipulated by people who are experts at doing that?

Should I go here? Oh, why not...

In other words, Mike, you have doubts about my testimony of subjective experience moved --as I believe I was --by the unction of the Holy Spirit, but earlier in this thread you quoting your friend saying "I started out being more "for" than "against" this movie...but Sunday night/Monday morning my heart...and then my head began to take a dif position." I guess his subjective experience is more reliable than mine. Okey-dokey.

Out of curiousity, what issues did those two or three raise, and what was their denominational/doctrinal background?

One I recall was a Presbyterian and his reservation was about the length of the beating scene, which I alluded to in a post here or elsewhere. I agreed and said so to the ICON pictures guy.

Dude, how many pastors/leaders and lesser lights came away from Pensacola ready to swear on their mother's grave that it was GOD AND GOD ONLY making it happen, and that it wasn't focused on manifestations in one breath and using the manifestations as evidence that it was the Holy Spirit in the next?

I am sorry to learn how little you think of my judgement, Christian maturity and ability to discern. You have pre-judged a movie you have not seen, based upon the reservations of a friend of yours who has not seen it, and you have discounted my impressions -- the impressions of one who HAS seen it. That makes sense, huh?

Yeah, but you were FAR nastier than I've ever seen you.

See my lengthly diatribe for details.

I am frankly worried that I am rubbing off on you, and I don't know if I could forgive myself for that.

Help me out then... set a better example! ha ha

Gary, I am beginning to think this is more than just brain fog from cold meds. What's up with you, brah, you ain't the sarcastic sort, or didn't used to be. What has changed?

See the diatribe.

[Pastor Gary]

Apparently, all of the dialog in this movie is in Aramaic, which is an interesting artistic touch of authenticity, but the obvious result will be a disconnect between the film and the viewer in terms of rational understanding through language.

The actors speak Aramaic and Latin, as appropriate to their character, and the movie is sub-titled in English. I found it very easy to follow. There was no liguistic disconnect in my experience.

There is not that much dialog in the Biblical text, actually. Take a look.

[Mike Vande]

I am frankly worried that I am rubbing off on you, and I don't know if I could forgive myself for that.

Help me out then... set a better example! ha ha

If that is what my brother needs, here is the best I can offer; I am sorry for offending you, it was not my intention, but I fully accept responsibility for it. I am to blame. Please forgive me. I love you.

Vande

[rough_rider]

One other question: Christ is beaten, crucified, dies: Is there any fast forward to the resurrection or is the last picture of Jesus one of just another dead person among the thousands and thousands the Romans crucified back in those days?

Good question, I was wondering the samething, Is there a scene of Christ resurrection?

[Pastor Gary]

Why would you advise trimming the length of the beating? Or perhaps you are thinking that only if the movie was 12 hours long it should, by ratio, include the complete length of the beating if they even know how long the beating really took?

You sort of answered for me. The movie is a movie, and not a real-time 12-hour documentary. In relation to the length of the movie ---you could say ratio, I guess--- I personally felt they stretched the beating out in the editing. As in all cinema, I am sure they shot take after take and probably filmed that beating all day, or maybe several days (??) and then selected the best pieces in editing. The version we saw was, we were told in advance, several iterations from finished, so we were asked to understand the missing special effects and odd abrupt edits in a few spots (and they were obviously there) and to give feedback about the flow of the story. They got input on the various scenes and one part of that was that it seemed that the beating was stretched out a bit and would be better tightened up a bit. They duly noted that, and it remains to be seen how the final version will end up.

One other question: Christ is beaten, crucified, dies: Is there any fast forward to the resurrection or is the last picture of Jesus one of just another dead person among the thousands and thousands the Romans crucified back in those days?

This is another area they got comments on at our screening. I'll try to describe the end as we saw it...

There's a big crane or helicopter shot of Christ's body, down from the cross, cradle by his blood soaked mother, Mary --- scene reminiscent of the famous sculpture. Fade to black. Fade back in as the camera slowly pans across the rolled away stone and into the entrance of the tomb... there in the tomb were these mummy-like grave clothes around a human form; they suddenly collapse, as if a huge air bag was emptied suddenly, and the camera pulls back to show a seated side view of Jesus. He is no longer the extremely battered and bloodied body we had last seen, but perfectly clean, seemingly whole and alive. (That shot was no doubt a challenge... he is seated, very discreetly naked, obviously, and shot in such a way it is not "nudity") He looks strong, virile, healthy, resurrected... and then he quickly stands and walks out of frame to the right and as he does, you clearly see right through the large nail hole in his right hand. For me, that was hair-on-the-back-of-the-neck moment. There's a slow fade to white and (if memory serves me) a scripture on the screen? They told us the ending was not complete, as there were special effects and music to be added. It was very clear that He sisn't stay in the grave, but arose.

Gibson was quoted as saying this was a great challenge; to show the resurrected Christ but stop the movie somewhere... it could have gone on to other things but was intended to be the last 12 hours of His life with emphasis (Gibson's Catholicism here?) upon Christ's Passion, His suffering and death. He didn't set out to tell the whole story of the New Testament, and I think he did a good job with the part he did portray.

[Pastor Bill]

I agree for the most part with the article, but I think the author is getting the cart before the horse so to speak.

"The Next Big Thing" really does seem to be a problem, but I don't think it is just as he portrays it. Man has a history of running after signs and wonders, but the scriptures say that signs will follow those that believe right? Too many people are chasing after "The Next Big Thing", but that doesn't mean that work, sign, experience, etc. was not originally from God.

This is the same problem I have with ministries that are overly "programmed" (Not that I am saying we should run around with no or little preperation, God can reveil his will to you years before the actual event if He wants to) but we must be careful not to fall into the ruts. We can't let ourselves just keep doing the same thing over and over because it worked once. Many people use this to encourage "The Next Big Thing" but in actuality what many people do is jump from one rut to a new rut rather than really following God's leading.

Many of these "Big Things" ARE of God, and ARE used of God, as long as we keep them in perspective as ministry HELPS, and not as the ministry itself. God moves through individuals ministering to other individuals. Period, that's the way Christ did it, and that is what works, but these books, movies, programs, etc CAN HELP in that work, as long as we don't become so dependent on them that we are not seeking God's leading.

The main thing I disagree with in this article is that we shouldn't reject the tool because it has been used inappropriately, and we should not reject future tools because the last ones were misused. God gives us these things and IF HE LEADS, use them, If not remember what Christ said about those that preached in his name but were not his disciples, Them that are not against us are for us. If you don't feel led to use this movie as a ministry opportunity, fine, will some misuse it, probably, but will God use it to save even one person, possibly, and in that I have to seek His will.