The Passion of Christ

In my opinion John is not a fundamental baptist but as long as his posts represent fundamental baptist views he is welcome to post. Please check out the forum guidelines at the top of the page for a better explanation.
Murph

 

From the IFBS newsletter:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/indexfbns.htm


Gibson belongs to a Traditionalist Catholic group that performs the mass in Latin, abstains from meat on Fridays, eschews ecumenism, and
other such things that were changed at the Vatican II Council in the 1960s. Gibson built his own Catholic chapel, called Holy Family, near
his California home. During the filming, Gibson attended a Catholic mass every morning with the misguided desire "to be squeaky clean."
The script was translated into Aramaic and Latin by Jesuit priest William Fulco.

When asked by a Protestant interviewer if someone can be saved apart from the Roman Catholic Church, Gibson replied, "There is no
salvation for those outside the Church" (The New Yorker, Sept. 15. 2003). This was the official teaching of Rome prior to Vatican II.

The movie is not based solely on the Bible but also on the visions of Roman Catholic nun-mystics St. Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of
Agreda.

Of the visions of Emmerich, Gibson said, "She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of" (The New Yorker, Sept. 15, 2003).

Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) was a German nun who allegedly had the stigmata or wounds of Christ in her body. Emmerich supposedly
"had the use of reason from her birth and could understand liturgical Latin from her first time at Mass." During the last 12 years of her
life, she allegedly ate no food except the wafer of the Catholic mass. Her visions on the life of Christ were published in 1824 under the title "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." They are still in print and were consulted by Gibson. An advertisement for Emmerich's Life of the Virgin Mary says, "This book is filled with unusual, saintly descriptions that are not recorded in
the Gospel story -- descriptions that supplement and illustrate the Biblical narrative in a way that makes the actual Scripture passages
truly come alive." Thus these alleged visions go beyond the Bible. According to Emmerich's visions, Protestants also go to purgatory but
they suffer more than Catholics because no one prays for them or offers masses for them. She taught that it is more holy to pray for
souls in purgatory than for sinners who are still alive.

Her deceptive visions on the suffering of Christ describe His scourging and crucifixion in great detail, giving many "facts" which do not
appear in Scripture. For example, she claimed that Christ "quivered and writhed like a poor worm" and that He "cried in a suppressed
voice, and a clear, sweet-sounding wailing" as He was being beaten. She even claimed that Christ "glanced at His torturers, and sued for
mercy." She also claimed that Jesus suffered from a wound on his shoulder more than any other.

Mary of Agreda (1602-1665) was also a Catholic nun and visionary mystic. Her entire family entered monasteries and convents in 1618,
which means that her mother and father disobeyed 1 Corinthians 7 and separated for the sake of the Catholic church. She was given to trances and even claimed that she could leave her body and teach people in foreign lands. Her book The Mystical City of God is about Mary. Like the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, those of Mary of Agreda go far beyond the Bible. For example, she claimed that though Joseph ate meat, Jesus and Mary seldom did.

Not surprisingly, therefore, Gibson's film contains errors when judged by the biblical account. For example, after Christ's arrest
and as He is being escorted to the high priest's residence, He is beaten, knocked down, and thrown off a bridge. After Christ is whipped, Mary gets down on her knees and wipes up the blood. Mary is
shown assisting Jesus on the way to the cross, with Jesus telling her, "Behold I make all things new."

Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus in the Gibson film, is also a staunch Roman Catholic. He prayed to St. Genesius of Arles and St. Anthony of
Padua for help in his acting career. He has visited Medjugorje to witness the site where Mary allegedly appeared to six young people.
One of the things that Mary allegedly told them is that the pope "should consider himself as the father of all people and not only the
Christians." Caviezel said, " This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son " (Interview with Jim and Kerri Caviezel
by Catholic priest Mario Knezovic, Radio "Mir" Medjugorje, December
2003; www.medjugorje.hr/int%20Caviezel%20ENG.htm).

Caviezel also said that his goal with the movie is to "bring mankind back together."
Caviezel said that he was given "a piece of the true cross, which he kept with him all of the time during the filming of the movie. He
also had relics of "Padre Pio, St. Anthony of Padoua, Ste Maria Goretti, and saint Denisius, the Patron saint of Actors." He prayed
the Rosary to Mary every day.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Has the film been tainted by being filtered through the teachings of the RCC?

Does the film focus not only on the sacrifice on Calvary, but does it also portray the glory of the resurrection?

Is the film a graphic representation of the RCC mass, where Christ is offered sacrifically on a daily basis?

I was wondering how much the apostasy of the RCC, would poison the production. It will assist in bringing a great unity under the broad ecumenical umbrella, and the doting benevelance of the papistry.

2 Co. 11:

3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4: For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.


12: But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13: For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15: Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.


A servant of Christ,
Drew

 

I've repeated this same line over and over in all of the "Passion" threads---

We need to remember---and be careful---not to equate the movie with the Scripture! The movie does not "inhance" the Bible(thats a moronic Mormon idea)---how on Earth can one "enhance" the word from the Word???

We need to remember--and be careful---that the movie is not "inspired!" Its not "inerrant" and its not "infallable"---the Bible is!!!

Brother David

 

Absolutely right!

I do look forward to seeing the movie. It looks great, and it looks powerful. But I don't subscribe to silver screen theology. We must remain able to discern between a movie, and scripture. I don't think there's evern been a religious-themed movie that's lined up with scripture 100%. That doesn't make it a less powerful movie. And I for one prefer to shy away from movie-olatry.

 

I need to be clear here ... the movie does contain story lines that are not in the gospel narratives. The story is true to the gospels in that it does not leave out large portions of the narrative. Obviously not every word of the text is included but I did not walk away from the movie saying "Gibson left out this and that."

The "extra" biblical material is very tasteful and no doubt depicts many of the emotions being experienced by the involved parties. Gibson does read between the lines at times but not in a way that takes away from the gospel account or Catholicizes it.

Gibson did say following the film that he did extensive research in a number of secular and sacred resources to try and give an historically accurate portrayal. The gory nature of the beating and crucifixion is identical to what one would read about from general Roman history.

Does the movie have limits? yes
Does Gibson read between the lines at times? yes
Does it distort the gospel story? no

Can God use the movie as a tool to initiate gospel discussions? Absolutely
Would you be wise to see the movie? Absolutely

 

Thanks SBC, your comments are very much appreciated...

 

I plan on seeing the movie and I don't care what anyone thinks of that.

 

Andy, I'm not home or I'd link you to the couple of websites where medical doctors have studied this type beating and death on a cross. The medical evidence is so horrid.... From Hematidrosis, beatings to the point of death, to Death by Suffocation and a Broken Heart.... This was a horrendous ordeal and deserves to be portrayed as such.

Diane

 

Amen! God wants us to apprehend these things by faith, not by sight.

 

Some of the most powerful messages I've heard were preached using video/media incorporated in them. Funny, I seem to remember them. If the churches don't change their methods from the 1930's, they are never going to reach the masses

 

Sorry, but Paul strongly disagrees with you.

1 Cor. 1:21:

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

&

Romans 10:17:

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the (spoken) word of Christ.

When Paul changes his mind, so will I.

Right my southern baptist preachin' buddy David?

 

Paul was writing to a bunch of ex-agnostics that held wisdom to a godly standard.
that in no ways says that we can't have visuals to accent (not in place of) the spoken word.

People learn differently. Some by hearing, some by visuals, some by doing.

God gave us all our senses to gather info.
I have heard the argument that only hearing and seeing are the gates to our soul.
God only uses hearing, Satan only uses seeing.
But that is not biblical.

God can use any sense he wants, to lead a person to him.

 

DD are you never going to learn???

Theology and methodology are to be distinguished not mingled.

Haven't we beaten this dead horse before?

 

This was posted on a board that I visit. I am not sure why anyone would be shocked at this. Mel is openly Catholic. His Dad is the "radical" one at least publicly. It is very difficult to remove the glasses of your world view when doing anything, which is why it is silly to believe in the current concept of separation of church and state. Any legislator or movie maker is going to approach their respective tasks from their foundational world view premises or faith, if you please. Therefore one must ask what the root premise or faith is and determine if it is good or evil for if the root is no good then neither can the fruit be good.

If the argument can be made that some Christians tend to jump to criticism then the same argument can be made that some tend to jump too quickly to approval without doing the research. John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. (KJV) On the surface, this may be a "thrilling" and "moving" depiction of the Gospel. Yet, if there are numerous scenes of speculation based on supposed "visions" rather than clear exegesis than we must conclude that the root is not good for the root is not in the Word. Now, you will say, you can't make a clear flowing movie with the facts and verbiage we are given in Scripture. True, and this has often made me wonder if the Lord really does approve of all the movies and plays we have made since we have had to "enhance" the Word to accomplish them. Surely, in His foreknowledge, He foresaw this technology and if He wanted movies we might have had the Gospel/Journal/Blog of Thomas or Andrew written in a script format with plenty of visual details to get the scenery and clothing correct. John said that what was written just scratched the surface of all that He did. God gave us a summary and we want the unabridged version in full screen. He seems to want to stay with old technology since His primary method of conversion is through the foolishness of preaching and by hearing of the Word. In the power of the Spirit, Paul so described the Crucifixion that folks did feel like they were right there viewing it. Maybe we need more Spirit power than star power.

I don't believe that I have yet to see a movie of this type without some "questionable" material. Indeed, many of them show Him with blue eyes and that is based on the heresy that Christ was the illegitimate son of a German soldier. Since He is depicted in Scripture of having nothing "different" about Him physically that would make Him stand out in a crowd of Jews that "error" is enough to invalidate the best of films. Even long hair would have made Him stand out for if He truly had a vow the Pharisees would have jumped on that that for why had they known Him three years and He still had not fulfilled His vow? With all the things the Left and the Right threw at Him that was never one of them hence it is unlikely He had long flowing locks. His hair may have covered His ears since the Jews believed a man showing his ears was vain but nothing like what we had in the 60's or the smaller current outbreaks of that look.

If a scene in this movie is based upon the description given by the nun it is certainly not what we find in Scripture. If He went as a sheep before the shearers then where do we get all this "cried in a suppressed voice, and a clear, sweet-sounding wailing" but through the fantasies of a woman that was possibly delusional due to the rigors of her stringent lifestyle. It is also plausible that her life story has been greatly enhanced over the years by those on a private mission. If Mel used her as a primary resource rather than the Scripture he used the wrong root and hence bad fruit.

After Christ is whipped, Mary gets down on her knees and wipes up the blood. Mary is shown assisting Jesus on the way to the cross, with Jesus telling her, "Behold I make all things new."


This is tear jerking and familial, but not Biblical. We are told Simon the Cyrenian assisted Him. If we must speculate, it would be more reasonable that Mary, in her sorrow, would need assistance going to the site of execution thus incapable of assisting Christ. We are told that she was at the Cross but not at the whipping. It is highly doubtful from what we know historically of the Romans that they would have allowed her or anyone else near him especially in the Praetorium. They were not known for their compassion. Getting Simon to help was not out of compassion, but most likely, again if we must speculate, to get the show on the road. The suffering was part of the condemnation so it stands to reason that there would be no assistance allowed under normal circumstances. If we must add things for the flow we can at least make them historically correct as best we can. John 20:25,26 indicates that He did not see His mother until He was on the Cross. Luke tells us that a great company of people and women followed Him weeping, but He did not single out Mary as being in that group or is there any indication that she was by His side. Matthew or Mark does not speak to this either. If you are going to depict something it should be accurate not romanticized.

I guess bottom line is can something good come out of the heretical teachings of Catholicism? Hardly. The main character supposedly carries with him a piece of the true Cross. Please! Over the years enough of those have been bestowed or sold to where at best it would have taken a crane to move the Cross. He prays to saints, which is unbiblical. Mel puts his faith in Jesus plus the Church instead of Christ and Him alone thus he is unsaved according to the Word of God he is trying to depict, which cannot be understood by the natural man. Can he then do a good job? No. At least the nun Mel relied on allowed non-Catholics to be in Purgatory (unbiblical) and hence eventually Heaven albeit centuries later than a Catholic. Many have taught that we just go straight to Hell without passing Go since the $200 couldn't buy us any mercy anyway. Money is only good in Purgatory. And this film is seen by at least one priest as a boon for ecumenicism or more aptly described as the one world church. And while there are those who disagree, I have yet to find any other contender for the title, the "Great Whore" other than the Roman Catholic institution. There are no other groups with the qualifications given in Revelation. I can't even find a distant runner up.

The root premises of the creator of and the actors in the movie are all grounded in centuries old heresy. How then can this fruit be hailed by Bible believers? To say we are stupid would be rude. Unwise would be more genteel. However, to say we lack discernment is the more accurate and biblical term. The great men of the past would shake and hang their heads in dismay to see us jumping on every bandwagon turning a blind eye and deaf ear to everything they taught us. Many gave their lives to give us the lessons, but we have flunked the class miserably.

Let us have the passion of Christ that prayed,

John 17:17-19
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. (KJV)

Truth will sanctify or set us apart from error not have us join hands and sing "ring around the rosie" with it. Mel's intentions may have been good. I do not judge his motives. He just has the wrong root faith and the wrong resources. His offering to God may be compared to that of Cain's. Well intended, but the wrong and yet, if Mel to come to true faith in Him we may see an offering acceptable to God.

Maverick Ministries
Luke 22:31,32
When the herd is aheadin' fer the cliff, it t'ain't bad bein' a Maverick!
Conscia mens recti
http://www.orgsites.com/tx/maverick_ministries/

http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=52990

MEL GIBSON'S FILM "THE PASSION OF CHRIST"

February 6, 2004 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, [email protected]; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

Hollywood actor-director Mel Gibson's controversial film on the death of Christ is proving popular among Christians even before its February 25 release date.

The graphic, $25 million film "The Passion of the Christ" depicts Christ's life from the Garden of Gethsemane to the resurrection.

After a private showing, Billy Graham praised it. Mission America Coalition plans to use the movie for evangelism. Campus Crusade is promoting it. Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in southern California purchased 18,000 tickets. The Evangelical Free Church of Naperville, Illinois, purchased more than 1,000. Two members of Wheaton Bible Church in Wheaton, Illinois, have offered to buy out two screenings of the movie at a local theater. After Gibson showed part of the movie to a convention of the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship, he received a standing ovation. Afterward, the daughter of the organization's president laid hands on Gibson and asked Jesus to "bind Satan, bind the press, we ask you, Lord" (Peter Boyer, "The Jesus War," The New Yorker, Sept. 15. 2003). Worship Leader magazine for Feb. 2004 offers a free guide to Gibson's movie and says, "There has never been a film like it! Powerful, life changing, an unprecedented opportunity for evangelism & discipleship." Robert Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral was given a private showing and afterward proclaimed, "It's not your dream, this is God's dream. He gave it to you, because He knew you wouldn't throw it away. Trust Him." The movie has been recommended by psychologist James Dobson and by Don Hodel, the current president of Focus on the Family. Ted Haggard, president of the National Evangelical Association, called Gibson "the Michelangelo of this generation." The Catholic League purchased 1,200 tickets at $9.75 apiece and will make them available to members for $5. The film was shown to members of the Vatican Secretariat of State, the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and all of them expressed unanimous appreciation and approval.

A positive review of the movie is making the rounds via e-mail under the name "Paul Harvey's Comments on The Passion," but it was actually written by Roman Catholic apologist Keith Fournier. Gibson belongs to a Traditionalist Catholic group that performs the mass in Latin, abstains from meat on Fridays, eschews ecumenism, and other such things that were changed at the Vatican II Council in the 1960s. Gibson built his own Catholic chapel, called Holy Family, near his California home. During the filming, Gibson attended a Catholic mass every morning with the misguided desire "to be squeaky clean." The script was translated into Aramaic and Latin by Jesuit priest William Fulco.

When asked by a Protestant interviewer if someone can be saved apart from the Roman Catholic Church, Gibson replied, "There is no salvation for those outside the Church" (The New Yorker, Sept. 15. 2003). This was the official teaching of Rome prior to Vatican II.

The movie is not based solely on the Bible but also on the visions of Roman Catholic nun-mystics St. Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda.

Of the visions of Emmerich, Gibson said, "She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of" (The New Yorker, Sept. 15, 2003).

Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) was a German nun who allegedly had the stigmata or wounds of Christ in her body. Emmerich supposedly "had the use of reason from her birth and could understand liturgical Latin from her first time at Mass." During the last 12 years of her life, she allegedly ate no food except the wafer of the Catholic mass. Her visions on the life of Christ were published in 1824 under the title "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." They are still in print and were consulted by Gibson. An advertisement for Emmerich's Life of the Virgin Mary says, "This book is filled with unusual, saintly descriptions that are not recorded in the Gospel story -- descriptions that supplement and illustrate the Biblical narrative in a way that makes the actual Scripture passages truly come alive." Thus these alleged visions go beyond the Bible. According to Emmerich's visions, Protestants also go to purgatory but they suffer more than Catholics because no one prays for them or offers masses for them. She taught that it is more holy to pray for souls in purgatory than for sinners who are still alive. Her deceptive visions on the suffering of Christ describe His scourging and crucifixion in great detail, giving many "facts" which do not appear in Scripture. For example, she claimed that Christ "quivered and writhed like a poor worm" and that He "cried in a suppressed voice, and a clear, sweet-sounding wailing" as He was being beaten. She even claimed that Christ "glanced at His torturers, and sued for mercy." She also claimed that Jesus suffered from a wound on his shoulder more than any other.

Mary of Agreda (1602-1665) was also a Catholic nun and visionary mystic. Her entire family entered monasteries and convents in 1618, which means that her mother and father disobeyed 1 Corinthians 7 and separated for the sake of the Catholic church. She was given to trances and even claimed that she could leave her body and teach people in foreign lands. Her book The Mystical City of God is about Mary. Like the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, those of Mary of Agreda go far beyond the Bible. For example, she claimed that though Joseph ate meat, Jesus and Mary seldom did.

Not surprisingly, therefore, Gibson's film contains errors when judged by the biblical account. For example, after Christ's arrest and as He is being escorted to the high priest's residence, He is beaten, knocked down, and thrown off a bridge. After Christ is whipped, Mary gets down on her knees and wipes up the blood. Mary is
shown assisting Jesus on the way to the cross, with Jesus telling her, "Behold I make all things new."

Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus in the Gibson film, is also a staunch Roman Catholic. He prayed to St. Genesius of Arles and St. Anthony of Padua for help in his acting career. He has visited Medjugorje to witness the site where Mary allegedly appeared to six young people. One of the things that Mary allegedly told them is that the pope "should consider himself as the father of all people and not only the Christians." Caviezel said, "This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son" (Interview with Jim and Kerri Caviezel by Catholic priest Mario Knezovic, Radio "Mir" Medjugorje, December 2003; www.medjugorje.hr/int%20Caviezel%20ENG.htm). Caviezel also said that his goal with the movie is to "bring mankind back together." Caviezel said that he was given "a piece of the true cross, which he
kept with him all of the time during the filming of the movie. He also had relics of "Padre Pio, St. Anthony of Padoua, Ste Maria Goretti, and saint Denisius, the Patron saint of Actors." He prayed the Rosary to Mary every day.

We believe that it is idolatrous to depict the Lord Jesus Christ in pictures and films. The Jesus in Mel Gibson's movie is depicted in the typical fashion with long hair, whereas the Bible is clear that Jesus would not have worn long hair (1 Cor. 11:14). Gibson got his inspiration for the long-haired Jesus from the Shroud of Turin. He
attempted to re-create the face depicted on the Shroud. Mel Gibson is famous for his roles in R-rated films such as Braveheart and Lethal Weapon.

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal in this particular aspect of our ministry is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. TO SUBSCRIBE to the Fundamental Baptist Information Service, send a blank email to [email protected].


------------------------
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:19 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Caviezel:
Through one's own life. It is not what we say but what we do. I dedicate my work to Her Son, I dedicate all that I do to Her Son. I ask Mary to guide me and my career. You can convert people only by living your life. This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son. Because it was made by her, it will be attacked by the enemy. In the USA, this film is under major scrutiny because of the truth that it brings. By living the truth, you will also be persecuted, the enemy will attack you, but have no fear, Our Lord will send his help and give you strength. And you will inherit heaven.

 

You bring up an excellent and worthy point. Many confuse the two, and end up doing a great disservice to the Gospel by doing so.

We Christians often complain that people aren't doing enough to spread the Gospel. Then, when someone is doing something to spread the Gospel, those same Christians complain that he's not spreading the Gospel good enough.

 

John, it isn't about how much you can spread, it is about how accurately you can spread it. That is my concern.

Tim, I was responding to you assertion that if people don't change the way they did things in 1930, they won't be effective.

If you mean that the 30s were a time when preaching was emphasized and the primary means of evangelism, I would agree by reminding you again of the two texts I quoted.

1 Cor. 1 is especially relevant as it refers to the method and the message.

If you meant that the 30s were full of nonsensical standards and a rejection of progress, then I would agree with you that that attitude is wrong.

Every method must be evaluated in light of true theology.

Morons like Rick Warren choose methodology and then find theology. Have you ever seen some of his exegesis?

SBC, try and follow a discussion.

 

Good post, Maverick!

There are certainly many real concerns about this movie that so many are rushing to embrace.
My question is, "what is nessesary for the Gospel to have been proclaimed?"
Reading up on earlier (middle ages) "Passion plays", I came across this quote: "Preachers dwelt with a morbid and sometimes sadistic realism upon the physical sufferings of Christ, for which they blamed the Jews." Indeed, after many "Passion plays", the locals, roused up by graphic violence, proceeded to murder the local Jews. Clearly, the Gospel had not been preached in these versions!
Now, at the original Crucifixion, people saw Jesus bloodied and killed, yet, with the possible exception of one Roman soldier, no one was recorded as being saved by their experience. When Peter preached the Gospel a few weeks later (where he did not dwell on the sufferings of Jesus), 3,000 were saved.
It seems to me that seeing someone beated and killed could arouse feelings of sympathy/pity for the victim, and anger/hatred for those shown as doing the violence. I am not sure however that it would evoke feelings of worship of God unless a preacher places it in context, God's love for mankind, etc.
Simply observing the crucifixion does not seem to be a salvic experience. Does simply feeling sorry for Jesus equate to hearing the Gospel? Mel's flawed film should not be seen as evangelistic unless accompanied by a very strong preaching of the Gospel, and better yet, just preach the Gospel!
Seriously concerned, Colin

 

Thank you, Colin!! Your point is well taken by this Southern Baptist preacher!!!

"For the PREACHING of the cross is to them that perish foolishness: but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."--1Corinthians 1:18


Your buddy,
Brother David