A few
days ago I discovered this article from Christian
Concern:
http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/wells-cathedral-promotes-blasphemous-film-about-jesus
It
raises awareness of the fact that the Chapter of Well's Cathedral have decided
to allow, as part of the Bath 2014 Film Festival, a showing of Martin
Scorsese's 1988 film "The Last Temptation of Christ" - a film which
when released led to protests, legal battles, and even a theatre being burnt
down by an indignant crowd of fundamentalist Christians!
But why has this film been denounced as 'blasphemous' 'heretical'
'dangerous' and 'subversive'? What, if anything, is wrong with showing
such a film in a Cathedral? The answer has to be simply everything.
Blasphemous
and Heretical? Really?
Firstly, let us look at the accusations that the film is blasphemous and
heretical.
At the start of the film there is a message from Martin Scorsese, a man who
describes himself as a 'lapsed Catholic' but whose 4 divorces would at the
least put a question mark over his commitment to being anything vaguely
Catholic, let alone a Biblical Christian. In this message he states that
what follows is not based on the Christian Gospels but on the book of the same
name by Cretan author Nikos Kazantzakis. It is worth pointing out that the
book is based on Nikos' readings of the
Gospel's yet falls short of claiming to be history. Nowhere does this
film claim, as Dan Brown did his Da Vinci Code, to be fact. Yet the overlap of
themes between the two - Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene, not dying on the cross
etc. - leads to the film being even more misunderstood today. Those who
read and lapped up the fiction and historical errors of the Da Vinci Code as
based on 'fact' are likely to transfer this position to the Last Temptation -
or at least see in it some form of vindication. I was at 6th form college
when the Da Vinci Code was released and it amazed me how many people, my age and
older, simply read the story as largely factual in regards to its claims about
Jesus and Christian history.
The biggest issue in the movie is that it portrays Jesus as a sinner. In
one scene Jesus claims that He will pay for His sins by dying. In another
He asks Mary Magdalene to forgive Him because he has done "too many bad
things." Whilst at the monastery He even lists His sins. He
also picks up two stones to represent His own sins in the
film's adaptation of the stoning of the adulterous woman (John 8.1-11).
"The biggest issue in the movie is that it portrays Jesus as a sinner."
Furthermore, we actually see Jesus sinning during the most offensive scene of
the movie. In this scene Jesus is seen consummating His
marriage with Mary Magdalene. It takes place during what is often
called the 'dream sequence' or 'vision sequence' - the vivid temptation Jesus
on the cross lives out where He, instead of dying as our propitiation, leaves
the Cross and lives a 'normal life.' To
most Christians viewing images of our Lord and Saviour, the very Pure Lamb of God having
sex is beyond the pale, but in the context of the movie it actually makes Jesus
a sinner. How? It all comes down to what Jesus reveals in
His Sermon on the Mount. Matthew
5.27-29 reads:
“You have heard that it
was said, Do not commit
adultery. But
I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed
adultery with her in his heart. If your right
eye causes you to sin, gouge it out
and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of the parts of your body
than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
This passage shows just how totally depraved we are
compared to God's perfect standard of holiness.
To picture and imagine in one's mind having sex with a person who is not
actually your wife (even if you are imagining they are!) is adultery, is sin,
and is a serious breach of God's Holy standard. The penalty for this crime is
death and damnation in hell, it is worth remembering the reality of this - as
Pastor Mark Driscoll would say "Hell is hot, forever is a long time." (Praise the Lord that if we truly repent and
whole heartedly believe the Gospel we will be saved from this most just
sentence!)
In this dream sequence Jesus commits adultery, He commits sin. This is a cataclysmic problem for all of
humanity. Scripture reveals to us that the
only reason we can be saved is because
Jesus did not commit sin. Jesus had
to be sinless to be the acceptable sacrifice. Scripture repeatable affirms these truths:
"Who
among you can convict me of sin?" John 8.46a (hint: they couldn't)
"You know that He was revealed so that He might take away sins, and there is no sin in Him." 1 John 3.5
"For you know that you were redeemed from your empty ways of life inherited from the fathers, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish" 1 Peter 1.18-19
"You know that He was revealed so that He might take away sins, and there is no sin in Him." 1 John 3.5
"For you know that you were redeemed from your empty ways of life inherited from the fathers, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish" 1 Peter 1.18-19
"For
we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses,
but One who has been tested in every way as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4.15
The doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ is enshrined
in the 39 Articles of the Church of England - the churches official doctrine
(see canon A5)
"Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh and in his spirit. He became the lamb without spot who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as Saint John saith, was not in him..." - Article 15
The Bible teaches than when we put our faith in Jesus as Lord, God, and
Saviour, He takes all of our sin, shame, filth, and darkness onto Himself and
gives to us His perfect record, His dazzling white robe of Righteous, and a relationship
with the Father only such sinlessness can bring. This is seen in 2 Corinthians 5.21
"He
made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the
righteousness of God in Him."
If Jesus sinned, He could not give us these things as
He didn't have them. As Article 11
states:
"We are accounted righteous before
God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith."
To say or show that Jesus was a sinner is blasphemy and
heresy. It is contrary to Scripture and
the Historical Formularies of the Church of England.
"In this dream sequence Jesus
commits adultery, He commits sin.
This is a cataclysmic problem for all
of humanity."
The film also contains many other issues, included but
not limited to the concept that Jesus could stop being the Son of God as if
this were a position or role and not an integral part of His eternal being,
Paul being portrayed as the person who 'invented' Christianity, and the
innumerable simple historical errors!
All of this places the film most certainly in the
'heresy' and 'blasphemy' category.
Whether portraying such things was Scorsese's intention is
irrelevant.
The
film defended?
Many people try to defend the film claiming that it portrays the very real
humanity of Christ and helps us relate to Him as Brother and not just
Lord. It is also argued that the
temptation scene is merely showing what can be gleaned from Hebrews 4.15 and
the passages describing His temptations in the desert. Jesus was tempted, of that there can be no
doubt.
It is a good claim, it seems a strong defence, but does this excuse the film or
does it just skirt the issue entirely leaving the charge of Heresy still valid?
"Jesus was tempted, of that there
can be no doubt."
Firstly, as already pointed out, the film doesn't only
show temptation but actual sin.
Secondly, it can be questioned if Jesus being tempted
in this way at the portrayed time happened - we know He wrestled with His
destiny so violently in the Garden of Gethsemane that He became so stressed
that He sweated blood. But it was in the
Garden that He finally said "Your will be done." On the cross He was lucid, He asked God to
forgive the people their sin, He forgave the thief, cared for His mother, and
quoted a Psalm that tells us that He was abandoned, due to the sin He took on,
by the Father - yet quoting this Psalm is important as everyone there would
have known that it continues to glorify and praise God for delivering Him!
Thirdly, we often equate temptation only with lustful
and base things. But temptation is much
wider than this, it includes the temptation to take your power and gifts and
use them for evil - much as He was tempted to do in the desert. It is also worth noting that the temptation
portrayed in the film is a giving in to the temptation to think of such things
- ask any mature Christian who is living victoriously and they will tell you
that when temptation begins to stir, before you allow yourself to even begin to
follow its thoughts and whispers, you can dismiss it through prayer. Was Christ ever tempted to think lustful
thoughts or imagine sinful things? I would say yes - but He never allowed it to
even get so far as His imagination.
The temptation portrayed
in the film is an unbiblical temptation that contradicts the very pure word of
God.
So
why is the film being shown?
"Not hiding from controversy
doesn't
doesn't
mean openly screening blasphemy
on our home turf"
In the prepared response given when one (quite rightly) writes to the Dean of
Well's Cathedral the Very Revd John Clarke (see the Christian Concern article linked above for details on how - I would also advise you to write to the Archbishops) he gives the justification for
showing this blasphemy in the Cathedral:
" Much has changed in public perceptions of faith over the last 25 years. In this more sceptical age the church should not hide from controversy and part of the task of the cathedral is to promote an intelligent faith that is capable of attracting men and women to follow in the way of Jesus in the twenty first century.
With this in mind we are organising a discussion before the screening
which will look at the theology behind the book and film and which will also
consider what is not said by the film. On the evening, in my welcome and
introduction, I will also suggest that the film offers, inevitably, a partial
view of who Jesus was. It is not designed to be a biography. My hope therefore
is that an audience who do not normally think about Jesus will spend time
thinking about his significance for us today.
Equally, on the day after the screening I will be giving a talk on
‘Jesus’ as part of a series in the cathedral called ‘What can we believe
today?’. This will provide another chance to invite people to deepen their
questioning about faith, both for those who wish to think about faith and
theology afresh, and for those who are in the process of exploring their
approach to God."
What are we to make of this? A few thoughts:
- "Not hiding
from controversy" doesn't mean openly screening blasphemy on our home turf
- What is
"intelligent" about a faith that contradicts its foundations in
Scripture?
- Is screening
heresy really, ever, an effective way to
"attract men and women to follow in the way of Jesus." How is this really any different from having
a public or dramatised reading from the Qu'ran about Isa (the false Jesus in
that book) as a way to attract people to the real Christ?
- Will many people even turn up to the discussion, and even if they do, given the
above, is it still a useful way to evangelise?
- What is
"not said" by the film is not really the problem - the problem is
what "is said" by the film!
- "Suggesting
that the film offers, inevitably, a partial view of who Jesus was." To me this sounds like wet liberalism and
compromising the essentials of the faith - the Last Temptation does not offer a
'partial view of who Jesus was' it offers lies, heresy, and blasphemy in the
place of God's divinely revealed truth.
A minister should not "suggest" it is partial he should boldy
denounce it as simply wrong.
- Are many
really going to go to the following evening session? And even if they do, is
the very pure, uncompromising, exclusive doctrine of Scripture going to be put
forward here? Given all of the above I have my concerns it won't be (to put it
mildly).
"The Last temptation does not offer
a 'partial view of who Jesus was' it
offers lies, heresy, and blasphemy
in the place of God's divinely
revealed truth."
Is
the showing legal?
I hope that from the above you can see clearly that the
film is heresy and blasphemy, full of lies and half-truths (more like
quarter-truths - if I am generous). I
also hope you can see the issues with the Cathedral's position and their clear
compromise with modern liberalism. The
question is, are the Cathedral clergy allowed
to show the film? There are two things
to consider - their oaths of ordination and Canon Law.
During their ordinations to the priesthood the clergy of the Cathedral were
asked this clear and simple question by the bishop:
"Will
you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all
erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word; and to use both publick
and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole,
within your cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?"
The clergy answered "I will, the Lord being my helper."
How is publicly screening blasphemy and heresy banishing and driving away all erroneous and strange doctrine? How does
showing material that blatantly contradicts Gods word possibly fulfil this
oath? Were one to hold a Bible Study within the church, which was attended by
the faithful, and in it read some of the works of the heretics like Pelagius or
Arius - with the sole and only intention being to strongly denounce and refute
it - this could be understood. To use
church property simply to publicly screen such dangerous heresy with little
to no knowledge of if any will respond to attempts to refute it, cannot be seen
as sensible. Showing this film in such a
way to the public is a clear breach of the ordination oath.
More importantly, and less personally, there is Canon F 16.1 of the Church of England. This reads as follows:
"When
any church or chapel is to be used for a play, concert, or exhibition of films
or pictures, the minister shall take care that the words, music, images, and
pictures are such as befit the House of God, are consonant with sound doctrine,
and make for the edifying of the people."
(It
is ridiculous to claim that this canon would not apply to Cathedrals, Minsters,
Abbey's etc. - they are all "Houses of God.")
Let me put this bluntly:
- the blasphemy and heresies of The Last Temptation with its
scenes of Jesus Christ having sex do not "befit the House of God" in
any way or measure.
- The film is in direct and clear opposition to "sound
doctrine" as understood by the Church of England, namely the clear
teaching of Scripture and the Historic Formularies.
- The heresies of this film can in no way be understood to truly "edify" the people.
The
screening of this blatantly blasphemous and heretical offensive film in Wells Cathedral is clearly illegal under
Canon Law and should probably be seen as a breach of the ordination oaths of the clergy
of that place who assented to it being shown.
"How is publicly screening
blasphemy and heresy 'banishing
and driving away all erroneous and
strange doctrine?'"