Thanks Paul. Yet another reason for me to have for my distaste for Frame's view of "reformed" theology, if he allows his teaching assistant to publish such shoddy work as this.
We reformed are really a piece of work. We have succeede in throwing out every distinctive of the reformation - the 3rd use of the law, the regulative principle, the 2nd commandment, the 4th commandment, et al, and then we have the gaul to throw stones at our baptistic brethren with whom Calvin would be far more likely to worship since he would not be subjected to images of Christ, football on the Lord's Day and skits and dance routines.
If this weren't so sad, it would be hillarious.
[quote:456fc8595a][i:456fc8595a]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:456fc8595a]
Interesting article my mom sent me..thought it might be enjoyed. It is written by a Frame's teaching assistant. I will bold the section in which he discusses the 2nd commandment-the article itself is good though(I just put the #5 in bold, that is where the section starts):
Below is an interesting reply to the article that Richard forwarded by
Andrew Webb arguing against seeing the Passion.
The author of the reply, Steve Hays, is Professor John Frame's teaching
assistant at Reformed Theological Seminary (though he speaking for himself
not Frame -- I'm just explaining who he is).
It's also noteworthy that Reformed Theological Seminary Professor of OT,
Bruce Waltke, himself an Orthodox Presbyterian (meaning on most issues to
the "right" of PCA), recommends we do see the movie and finds no 2nd
Commandment issue with it.
As the GBC elders have said before, it's a matter for a thoughtful
conscience. I would not have forwarded this to GBC family ordinarily but
felt I should for the sake of balance to illustrate that there is a wide
variety of opinions about the Passion, even among the "Reformed" circles and
it's by no means automatic that Catholics or "Evangelicals" want this movie
but that "Reformed" should not. There are many ways to consider this.
-----Original Message-----
From:
[email protected] [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 1:45 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Re: The Passion
I appreciate Andrew Webb's sincerity. For the most part, I can also agree
with a lot of what he says, but draw rather different conclusions. Taking
his 5
points in order:
1. Webb seizes on one possible use of the film (as an evangelistic tool),
and
then debunks the entire enterprise on that basis alone. But is that the only
possible benefit of viewing the movie? Suppose it deepens the faith of a
viewer who is already a believer?
Webb stake out a very strong version of a position, then tries to knock it
down. We must use tools like The Passion to reach the lost, otherwise we're
missing a great opportunity.
But my position doesn't depend on such a heavy-duty commitment. Indeed, it's
because I'm noncommittal on what methods God may or may not employ in
leading
someone to Christ that I can be more open-minded than Webb. Who am I to
prejudge what tools the Lord may avail himself of? Some methods are clearly
improper. But I don't see that the case for or against this particular film
turns on
such a bold position.
2. The script would naturally be better if it stuck with the canonical
Gospels. But let's consider some the possible consequences of viewing this
movie:
i) An Evangelical converts to Catholicism. That would be a bad outcome.
However, an untested faith that is so unstable wasn't much of a faith to
begin
with. It was just a default setting in absence of time-tested and
well-informed
faith.
ii) An unbeliever converts to Catholicism. Even if we were to say, for the
sake of argument, that all Catholics are damned, so are unbelievers, so I
don't
see how conversion from unbelief to Catholicism is, even under the most
ungenerous construction of the alternatives, a worst case scenario.
iii) A nominal Catholic becomes a devout Catholic. But assuming, for the
sake of argument, that both identities are damnable, is that an unacceptable
consequence?
Now it could be argued that a nominal Catholic is easier to win over to the
Evangelical faith than a Catholic who is hardened in the errors of
Catholicism.
That is true. But this is all rather hypothetical. It assumes that he would
be reachable before seeing the movie. This, in turn, assumes that he's is
taken out of play after seeing the movie. Given the relative proportion of
Catholics to Evangelicals, many Catholics are already out of reach because
there are
not enough astute Evangelicals to reach them.
This line of criticism assumes an ideal situation in which we can control
the
choices that people make and the outcome of those choices--in which a
superior alternative is readily available.
And although I don't want to overgeneralize about this, social conditioning
is a partial, although by no means infallible, indicator of who the Lord has
chosen to save or not to save.
If, conversely, the Lord has chosen to save someone, then that individual
can
take a rather zigzag route. An unbeliever could convert to Catholicism, get
involved in Bible studies, network with Evangelical friends, and transition
out
of the RCC into an Evangelical setting.
Suppose the film makes an unchurched viewer curious about the Gospels? So he
goes back to the original and gets his theology from the horse's mouth (as
it
were). God is very ingenious about using unpromising means to achieve his
ends. That is an aspect of his sovereignty.
It may be that using Latin dialogue is a plug for the Latin Mass. But unless
the viewer already knows about the Tridentine Mass and the theology of the
Mass, he is not going to get the idea of a bloodless resacrifice from
watching a
gory film about the Crucifixion.
Let us not rule out the possibility that God has a remnant in the Roman
Church. We, who know better, should coax them out of Babylon whenever the
opportunity presents itself, but being a Roman Catholic isn't always worse
than being
an unbeliever.
3. It is true that an overemphasis on the physical suffering of Christ is
theologically unsound. However, I'm put off by the airchair quality of
these
disclaimers. Webb hasn't the slightest idea what it feels like to be
tortured to
death. By contrast, many of the original readers of the Gospels had witness
this form of punishment. And there are many parts of the world today where
Christians are martyred for their faith, often in the most cruel ways
available.
For many of us who live in the age of anesthetics and pain killers and
climate-controlled cars and homes and offices, the bodily torment of Christ
is a
pious abstraction. Spartacus is a poor counterexample because he did not
voluntarily submit himself to such a hideous demise.
The business about the active obedience of Christ strikes me as a mere
cavil.
How do you present that on film? Is this an objection to Gibson's film, or
any cinematic treatment of the Passion? The point is that every medium has
its
strengths and limitations. The sacraments are visual aids, object lessons.
They are no substitute for the word of God, but they assist our
comprehension and
retention of the Word.
Again, it's true that the movie is colored by a bit of Mariolatry. But,
again, Webb picks this out on the basis of extraneous knowledge. To the
uninitiated, you wouldn't get the cult of Mary and all that goes with it
from watching
the movie. Just as the movie is flawed by extra-Biblical material, Webb's
analysis is flawed by extra-cinematic material.
4. Much of what he says here is true, but there are a couple of problems
with
it:
To begin with, the same thing could be said about the Jesus film, which he
mentioned, with seeming approval, under point #1.
Again, the problem with this sort of criticism is not that it's wrong, but
that those who need to hear it don't listen, while those who listen don't
need
to hear it. Saddleback and Willow Creek are going to continue to do
whatever
they please with or without Webb's strictures or Mel's movie.
Throughout the Bible, God employs both word-media and event-media in
revelation. And word and sign are both in play in the teaching of Christ. A
miracle
is an enacted parable.
No, preaching cannot be replaced by another medium. But it's not as if that
either/or alternative is forced upon every pastor or moviegoer. Why should
I
allow Rev Engel's truncated position to dictate my own position?
Unfortunately, Webb falls into the trap of equating orthodoxy with a
reactionary response to various errors or overemphases. That is really not
taking our
cue from Scripture. And the comparison with the Middle Ages is a red-herring
in the information age. The horse is out of the barn.
As to emotion, this is, again, a very one-sided objection. Mere emotion
never
saved anyone. But the Bible is a very passionate book. And if the Bible has
no emotional resonance for me, then is it even real to me? If I never feel
what
I say I believe, isn't my faith just a distant abstraction? What about
passion in preaching? What does Webb think of George Whitefield passionate
preaching
of the Gospel?
[b:456fc8595a]5.[/b:456fc8595a] How does Webb happen to know that God went to great lengths to avoid any
physical description of his Son? (BTW, I never knew that omnipotence had to
go
to great lengths to do anything!) How does he know that the Gospels
PURPOSELY
left out any description of Christ? This is a rather presumptuous assertion.
There are very few physical descriptions of any of the men and women in
Scripture. Is this because it would violate the 2nd Commandment to depict
St. Paul?
Actually, it's Webb who runs the risk of idolatry with such a sweeping
argument.
Well, I can play the guessing game as well as Web. There are, I assume, a
couple of reasons why the Gospels don't describe our Lord's appearance. To
begin
with, it isn't relevant to his ministry, and, additionally, the written word
is not inherently visual. So unless you have a special reason to do so, you
wouldn't. But, of course, it is essential in the film medium.
At the same time, Webb raises important questions about how we read the
Bible. The Bible uses a lot of picturesque imagery. And the historical
narratives
of Scripture contain many visual descriptions. Is Webb saying that the
reader
should never try to see, to imagine, to visualize what the Bible describes?
Isn't there some value in a reader trying to picture the scene depicted in
Scripture? To be a participatory reader? To enter as fully as possible into
the
text?
No, we don't know exactly what Jesus looked like (unless you regard the
Shroud of Turin as authentic). But we know a number of things in general. He
was a
man. A Palestinian Jew. He was around 30 yrs. age when he began his public
ministry. He was a manual laborer. He lived in a hot, outdoor climate.
What did the Apostles see when they looked at Jesus? Did they see anything
different than we would see if we were in a position to take a picture of
him?
Yes, Christ is MORE than a man (God incarnate), but what they SAW was a man.
I really don't object to a crucifix. It doesn't happen to suit my personal
taste. I wouldn't wear one (although I do wear a cross from time to time.)
But,
as a matter of principle, I don't regard this as a deal-breaker.
Steve
[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:456fc8595a]