What to think of impact of "Jesus" film's impact on world since it violates 2 comand?

Status
Not open for further replies.

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
I have been hearing a lot lately about the impact the "Jesus" film is having on nations by way of evangelism so I wondered what the thoughts on this were on the PB since it is believed that movies about Jesus violate the 2nd commandment?

(I was going to post a link but it has a picture of Jesus from the film and I knew that would offend some people).
 
2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
 
If God could use a talking jack ass in Balaam's day, He can use a film produced by them in our day. :2cents: The glory goes to God for it's impact, not to the breakers of the commandment.
 
I agree with others. I saw it years ago when it first came out when I was on the mission field. While I found the images of our Lord to be offensive, I walked away marveling at how the scripture ministered to me.
 
I am not offended, per se, by images of Christ but I have noticed that in movies and even audio bibles Jesus is portrayed differently. He takes on a particular personality based on what the people selling the product want to project. Example, the Word of Promise Bible, NKJV, completely dramatized (OVER dramatized), it has James Caviezel playing Jesus and it is a very mellow, almost sleepy Jesus who never exhibits any emotion. The worst movie, not counting Jesus Christ Superstar, is one that follows the gospel of Luke. It is really good except for how Jesus is portrayed, he is real giggly and dingy even when he is giving it to the Pharisees.

The best ones I have seen are The Gospel of John and a cartoon called the Miracle Maker. Not that anyone cares or will ever go see these.
 
Doesn't the PCA allow for images of Jesus in teaching but not in worship? I have known PCA churches to use the Jesus film.



For Mslms, they will often not accept it if you give them the Scriptures. But they are very receptive to audio or video presentations of the Gospel. There does seem to be legitimate fruit from these efforts of audio (music, reading the stories of Scripture in the vernacular...which I mass-produced last year and saw some results) and even video (the Jesus film in local vernaculars).
 
Doesn't the PCA allow for images of Jesus in teaching but not in worship? I have known PCA churches to use the Jesus film.

I am unaware of images being allowed in teaching. I checked the Book of Church Order and all I found on images was the following:

47-1. Since the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and
practice, the principles of public worship must be derived from the Bible, and
from no other source.
The Scriptures forbid the worshipping of God by images, or in any
other way not appointed in His Word, and requires the receiving, observing,
and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God
hath appointed in His Word (WSC 51, 50).

I am unaware of how one would be able to look an at image of Christ without thoughts of worship running through your head (thus breaking the second commandment). So if the church makes allowance for the use of images of Chirst, I think they are in error. I very much hope this is not the case. Perhaps someone more experienced than I am can shed some light.
 
It's an exception to the PCA Standards which I believe has to be registered with the Presbytery by TEs that take it.

Doesn't the PCA allow for images of Jesus in teaching but not in worship? I have known PCA churches to use the Jesus film.



For Mslms, they will often not accept it if you give them the Scriptures. But they are very receptive to audio or video presentations of the Gospel. There does seem to be legitimate fruit from these efforts of audio (music, reading the stories of Scripture in the vernacular...which I mass-produced last year and saw some results) and even video (the Jesus film in local vernaculars).
 
I would agree with the others that just as some preach the Gospel and yet mean something else by it, God's Word does not return void. So if the film in any way includes God's Word people still will come to Christ in spite of its violation of the 2nd Commandment. It's just proof that God uses various means to bring Christ to the Nations even if those means are tainted with doctrinal error. Plenty of us were saved in Arminian Churches and many folks were saved under the preaching of Billy Graham just to name a few examples where Gospel preached reaps harvest.
 
What bothers me is that because the Lord can use the film for his purposes (He uses all things for His glory), people think that this validates the method. No doubt people have been saved after watching the Jesus film or Passion of the Christ. But if you state that images of Christ are a violation of scripture, people will say, "how can you say that? Don't you know that so and so was saved as a result?"

Unbiblical pragmatism.
 
Doesn't the PCA allow for images of Jesus in teaching but not in worship? I have known PCA churches to use the Jesus film.

Yes, the PCA does make an exception for teaching. At my previous church, Briarwood Presbyterian, they actually purchased an entire week's worth of Passion of the Christ tickets at a local cinema so they could bring people to see it for free. Not saying I agree with that, but I believe it's within the rules of the denomination. The same church has paintings of Jesus over the altar in the prayer room. I love the church, but I thought that was a bit over the line...
 
As I was growing up I was allways moved by movies-ie- The Robe, Ben-Hur and some others, but it was the movie THe Ten Commandments that had me thinking and led me to leave the RCC.
 
I guess I don't have much patience with that kind of idolatry. And right there where anyone wanting to use the room has no choice but to see it?

Altar?:confused:

Doesn't the PCA allow for images of Jesus in teaching but not in worship? I have known PCA churches to use the Jesus film.

Yes, the PCA does make an exception for teaching. At my previous church, Briarwood Presbyterian, they actually purchased an entire week's worth of Passion of the Christ tickets at a local cinema so they could bring people to see it for free. Not saying I agree with that, but I believe it's within the rules of the denomination. The same church has paintings of Jesus over the altar in the prayer room. I love the church, but I thought that was a bit over the line...
 
Is a teaching picture of Jesus REALLY idolatry? Putting pics of Jesus in a prayer room seems to be, but a pictorial representation of the acts of Jesus does not seem to be. There is a world of difference between pics of Jesus in church as objects to focus on in prayer and a graphic representation of the life of Christ.
 
Josh: Again, some PCA churches allow pics of Jesus in teaching. This seems less offensive than hanging his picture in front of a place where people pray. The 2nd Commandment means not to make any object to worship. Some PCA churches state that using pics of Christ for teaching is not a worship use but a teaching use.
 
If I grant your point that both are wrong, I think you still need to admit that one is less of an offense than the other.
 
Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 97. Are images then not at all to be made?

Answer: God neither can, nor may be represented by any means: (a) but as to creatures; though they may be represented, yet God forbids to make, or have any resemblance of them, either in order to worship them or to serve God by them. (b)

(a) Isa.40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. (b) Exod.23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. Exod.23:25 And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. Exod.34:13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: Exod.34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Exod.34:17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. Num.33:52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: Deut.7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. Deut.12:3 And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Deut.16:21 Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee. 2 Kin.18:3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. 2 Kin.18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Question 98. But may not images be tolerated in the churches, as books to the laity?

Answer: No: for we must not pretend to be wiser than God, who will have his people taught, not by dumb images, (a) but by the lively preaching of his word. (b)


(a) Jer.10:8 But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities. Hab.2:18 What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols? Hab.2:19 Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. (b) Rom.10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Rom.10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Rom.10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 2 Pet.1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 2 Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim.3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
 
My wife and I frequent Branson, MO, which is sort of the poor man's Nashville, anyway, they have an ongoing show called "The Promise" which is the story of the passion of the Christ. It plays several times a day. A case can be made that movies can have some sort of evangelistic benefit but this show is simply Christ crucified simply for entertainment. Besides the violation of the 2nd command it proves that most people just don't get why Christ died. They think of it as something that makes them emotional. It makes them cry and feel good.
 
I was asked to leave a Church because of my objections to the film, which were tantamount to "A Bible in the hands of an unbeliever, and a preacher to explain its contents, far surpasses any second commandment violation depicting a person of the Godhead". Portions of the film were shown (unexpectedly) to a class I attended at that Church. I was appalled at the license taken with the Scriptures, especially when the supporters and promoters of the film were so adamant about its "accuracy" to the Gospel account. The trouble with any such depiction or dramatization is the extra-scriptural details that *must* be added to such a production (not even to mention the direct violation of the second commandment by depicting a person of the Godhead). The modern Church has lost the sensitivity to what inspiration means to the point that a film which takes great license in embellishing the Scriptures is still called "true to the narrative". It has been 15-16 years, but I remember one scene very distinctly--The actor portraying Peter enters the tomb of the risen Christ, grabs the graveclothes and presses them to his face, and then weeps. I remember thinking, "where is that in the Gospel record?"
 
If pictures of Jesus are a sin (and I believe they are),

then it is only reasonable to conclude that for every one person "positively" impacted by a single instance, many more (both saved and lost) are not merely unaffected, but must be grievously affected.

From a WCF point of view, blessing the fact of the "Jesus Film" is akin to blessing God for polygamy in societies where the only alternative to plural marriages for women is slavery or prostitution. Sure, no doubt there are many women who are given stable, productive lives under such conditions. But then, there are the many who aren't. And there are the hidden, destabilizing effects on the society as a whole.

I think the parallel is apt. Many are quick to point to the alleged benefits of pictures of Jesus. But scripture also warns us not to be wiser than God, and to stick with his "foolish" program. There is a way that seem right to a man...
 
If pictures of Jesus are a sin (and I believe they are),

then it is only reasonable to conclude that for every one person "positively" impacted by a single instance, many more (both saved and lost) are not merely unaffected, but must be grievously affected.

From a WCF point of view, blessing the fact of the "Jesus Film" is akin to blessing God for polygamy in societies where the only alternative to plural marriages for women is slavery or prostitution. Sure, no doubt there are many women who are given stable, productive lives under such conditions. But then, there are the many who aren't. And there are the hidden, destabilizing effects on the society as a whole.

I think the parallel is apt. Many are quick to point to the alleged benefits of pictures of Jesus. But scripture also warns us not to be wiser than God, and to stick with his "foolish" program. There is a way that seem right to a man...

What should be done then? Should churches that use such things be censured, as well as pastors that allow it. And what of folks like RC Sproul that seem to make a distinction between images used in worship and visual portrayels of the NT for teaching? What of church-goers who watch these movies. Even Ben Hur shows the robe of Jesus right? If an elder visits a church goer and that church goer has such a movie, should he be under church discipline?
 
Since we are talking about violations of the second command I will mention something else that bugged me. My wife and I recently went to St. Louis we visited the PCA seminary, Covenant, the St. Louis Basilica and the Lutheran Seminary, Concordia. They have a new sanctuary and at the front they have a cross and on the cross was a Jesus of sorts. This is what bugged me. It was not the typical dead Jesus you see on crosses in older Catholic and Lutheran churches it was art! It was a kind of a wormy, squiggly looking thing. Since they felt the need to make the event, and person who saved them into a work of art it proves that they just do not get it. It sort of resembles that, make Christ into what ever makes you feel good kind of thing. I think the fact that they get what Jesus did and who he was so wrong bugs me more than the fact that it is an image of God.

However, after going to the Basilica I do have a greater appreciation for why the reformers were so dead set against images of Christ. Statues and pictures of Jesus and Mary were everywhere. There were even a few people praying to them :eek:.

side note: we rounded off our trip of visiting churches and seminaries by visiting the Budweiser plant.
 
The PCA can allow whatever exceptions the individual Presbytery can get away with, and sometimes Elder candidates haven't got a clue as to the contents of the BCO or WCF, so the subject never comes up in any event. So I wouldn't use the argument that some PCA churches allow something as a justification of orthodoxy.

I understand the whole issue of teaching vs. worship is rooted in stained glass windows, and would be glad to be informed further by anyone. The idea was that European peasants couldn't read, so Gospel stories were portrayed in glass for their benefit. So the roots of the matter were in that sort of pragmatism we call "ends justifying the means".

When our church bragged about the amount of time the Jesus Film was shown by people we supported, I always kept silent because it seemed to me that there were bigger fish to fry, and you're supposed to pick the battles that you can win. Getting and training Elders who are really Elders would lead to the gradual demise of much that isn't right in Reformed denominations. But that can't be done until those ultimately responsible for good leadership start to care about good leadership.
 
If pictures of Jesus are a sin (and I believe they are),

then it is only reasonable to conclude that for every one person "positively" impacted by a single instance, many more (both saved and lost) are not merely unaffected, but must be grievously affected.

From a WCF point of view, blessing the fact of the "Jesus Film" is akin to blessing God for polygamy in societies where the only alternative to plural marriages for women is slavery or prostitution. Sure, no doubt there are many women who are given stable, productive lives under such conditions. But then, there are the many who aren't. And there are the hidden, destabilizing effects on the society as a whole.

I think the parallel is apt. Many are quick to point to the alleged benefits of pictures of Jesus. But scripture also warns us not to be wiser than God, and to stick with his "foolish" program. There is a way that seem right to a man...

What should be done then? Should churches that use such things be censured, as well as pastors that allow it. And what of folks like RC Sproul that seem to make a distinction between images used in worship and visual portrayels of the NT for teaching? What of church-goers who watch these movies. Even Ben Hur shows the robe of Jesus right? If an elder visits a church goer and that church goer has such a movie, should he be under church discipline?

ˇOˇ (shrug) Its a problem. If we were living 100 years ago, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Hardly a person to the left of the Anglicans and Lutherans were divided on this question so much as a hair's breadth, whether a baptist or a presbyterian.
 
If pictures of Jesus are a sin (and I believe they are),

then it is only reasonable to conclude that for every one person "positively" impacted by a single instance, many more (both saved and lost) are not merely unaffected, but must be grievously affected.

From a WCF point of view, blessing the fact of the "Jesus Film" is akin to blessing God for polygamy in societies where the only alternative to plural marriages for women is slavery or prostitution. Sure, no doubt there are many women who are given stable, productive lives under such conditions. But then, there are the many who aren't. And there are the hidden, destabilizing effects on the society as a whole.

I think the parallel is apt. Many are quick to point to the alleged benefits of pictures of Jesus. But scripture also warns us not to be wiser than God, and to stick with his "foolish" program. There is a way that seem right to a man...

Excellent points. Romans 3:8 is a GREAT verse for showing that God does NOT approve of the position "the end justifies the means." Yet how often do we see evangelicals doing this very thing with regard to evangelistic "techniques" and "methods." It is perverse to claim to be "helping" or "pleasing" God by evangelizing but breaking several of His commandments in the process of doing so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top