OK, saw it. Random thoughts time. Hopefully something more coherent will develop by the time of the Dividing Line tomorrow morning.
1) When Jesus said “I AM” to the soldiers, they fell back upon the ground. Why on EARTH delete that even when Jesus says “I am”? 2) “It is accomplished” and “It is finished” are not, in the context of the atonement, the same things. 3) Jesus was wearing clothing when He came out of the grave. *Not* the way to end. 4) The apostles addressed Mary as “Mother”? 5) Mary had supernatural knowledge even prior to the coming of the Spirit? 6) Relics, relics, and more relics (straight out of Emmerich). Stations of the cross, “St. Veronica,” the whole nine yards. 7) We might well see the founding of the Roman Anti-defamation League as a result of this. 8) What on EARTH was that hideous baby thing in the devil-woman’s arms? 9) Most, but not all, of the overt Roman Catholic elements were kept at the “subtle enough not to catch the mind of the evangelical, prominent enough to assure the Roman Catholic that all is well” level. 10) The emotional element was not quite as strong as I expected, but then again, I have never gone into a film more primed to be watching it closely, so I am hardly a meaningful barometer. Besides, I’m Scottish. 11) Will I think of this film at the next Lord’s Supper? Probably. 12) Will I envision Jesus as Jim Caviezel? No. Not for a moment. Not once during the film did I make that connection. That was Jim Caviezel up there, not my Lord. 13) Will the emotions over-run commitment to the why of the cross, leaving people emotionally committed to whatever traditional lens through which they viewed the film? For many, yes. 14) Does the film open the door for proselytization of “evangelicals” by zealous Roman Catholics? Yes and no. Outside of the unbiblical and extraneous Marian elements, the issues are what they were before the film was released, and, sadly, evangelicals remain just as ignorant of the importance of sound doctrine regarding God’s purposes in the atonement as they were before. This just opens up more opportunities either for that ignorance to be corrected, or, negatively, to be taken advantage of. 15) Could an evangelical successfully “filter out” the extraneous stuff? I suppose so, but it would take a conscious effort.
So, to see or not to see? Tough call. It is culturally relevant. A person who has seen it is in better position to speak to its issues than one who has not. On the other hand, it is not nearly as accurate as we were told; it is truly a prize for Rome, and it may well bother many believers with its portrayal and presentation. If you go, don’t go because of the herd mentality. Go realizing what you are seeing, or don’t go at all.
