The personal drama:
When I originally became aware of this controversial subject, I sent out the e-mail which you see at the top of www.anotherchrist.com

This first aside deals with the paragraph from my initial e-mail that got me CORRECTLY rebuked by Jim, and another local friend and leader.

I have since removed that paragraph, and apologized to my mailing list, as they pointed out that it looked like I was saying anybody that saw this movie wasn't saved. This caused some hurt, for which I am sorry, and that was not what I meant. I said "anyone (a loaded word, I now realize) who thought this movie could lead people to Christ" needed to examine themselves to see if they were really saved. I can see where Jim and others would say I was accusing a lack, or "loss," of salvation for just seeing the movie though.

Pasted below is the paragraph removed from the first version of this site, followed by a few words of correction and clarification that followed.

"Anybody who thinks that bringing
unbelievers to this movie can win them to the real Christ, however, is deceived, and probably needs a reality check to see if they themselves are committed to or have ever even met the real Jesus Christ, and not just some other Hollywood image."
 
Jim wrote (among other things):

"...my gut is I  want to distance myself from this kind of radical behavior.  Do you realize in your post you put the majority of Christians on trial accusing them of doubtful salvation for promoting the movie? Don't you think that is a bit extreme?

and I replied (among other things):

"... I think it's a bit Biblical though, because the Bible repeatedly tells us to double-check our salvation:
"Let a man examine himself, to see whether he is in the faith"
"Be careful lest you think you stand..."
"Many will say to me on that day Lord Lord..." You know there are others, but I said I'd be brief.

"for promoting this movie?"
-Not "this movie." Specifically, acceptance of the idea that presenting
people a false Christ could lead them to the real one, is what I think should cause someone to question their salvation. It's another Christ that the Bible does not speak of presented in this movie. That's just the way I see it, with no apologies."

Another leader put it to me this way:

"...and it comes across
as a blanket statement that all of us Christians who went to the movie were
led like sheep to the slaughter and have unknowingly become apostates.  I
truly don't think you believe that."

and I replied...

-- Well, not all.....  jk

-- That is Jim's biggest concern as well I think. more in a sec, but

-- Many churches and individuals have already become apostates, and would eat films like this up though, without caring about it's scriptural basis. Or the Bible's  for that matter!
The 2nd article you sent is great as to how to "use" this film.
My initial statement was in regard to the fact that "the movie" cannot present Christ, or get people saved. Sadly, there are people who think it can, and people like that really do need the reality check spoken of (and the Bible is full of warnings to us all to "examine ourselves, to see whether we're in the faith" so I think such statements DO have their place).
But I'm mainly talking religious churchgoers who have never been saved themselves, but obviously, I did not say that in the first e-mail. My use of "anybody" is the issue. Dialogue and relationships and proper presentations of the gospel, following it, can be worked together "for good" though, but I think we both innately have the sinking feeling regarding to how few, percentage-wise, that will be the case with. My concern was the majority. I've already stated on the site that of course God can use this film (and JCS and LTOC) to His glory, and the same is true here. But via His sovereignty, not via the films themselves. I'm afraid a true "worker" would have more mess to clean up in presenting Christ to someone who's seen this film, and the gchurch article does a great job of explaining that, but without being near as condemning about it.

-- Bottom line, I will remove that statement from the opening paragraphs of the  site. There's no way to re-write it to indicate  the above, and since is such a "stopping point" in the reading, I think the overall points I'm fixed  upon will best be served without it anyway. I will also send a follow-up e-mail with an apology and a hopefully not-overdone clarification.

Out of the e-mails I have received, that has not been a point that anybody else has raised, but I value your and Jim's input enough to receive the correction, and deal with it.
 

The Passion, Another Christ
Page 1    Page 2

Firstly, for those 3 or 5 people following the personal drama, Jim and I will be okay! We certainly have our disagreements on this issue, but we do not expect them to result in so "sharp a dispute" that we end up like "those other 2 guys." Let's just all agree that "Iron cannot sharpen iron, except that a few sparks fly" and leave it at that ;)

Secondly, if you've found this page, and have no idea what's going on, you should begin at www.anotherchrist.com - where I posted some links dealing with the movie "The Passion" and it's arguable relationship to the 2nd Commandment (as well as the Mirian theology of the film, e-mail discussions about "additions" to the gospel, and a failure by church leaders to properly discern this film's theology, or warn of it's potential harm). OF COURSE this has me caused no small amount of debate! My friend and colleague Jim Wilhelmsen was soon to chime in hard against these views. His public response is here, and you have now come to "my response to his response." Please understand my goal in presenting this second page is to encourage all to continue to deeply study the Word of God, and to seek God's will for how to apply ANY matter to your own life, not to nitpick or continue an argument. I believe Bible study is both necessary and healthy for this topic, so that all may "know their options" before becoming "fully persuaded" either way. However, I believe that the modern church has neither intelligently nor scripturally engaged the topic of movies depicting Christ, so this page - and others - are a necessity of sorts, for this "movie age" we live in.

Thirdly, Jim's response is quite good, and I'd dare say convincing. Anyone interested in this Passion / 2nd Commandment issue will be doing themselves a disservice by not reading it. If I could boil it down, I might say that he argues that Christ's Incarnation abolished the need to observe the 2nd Commandment, and that even if one does not think so, that Romans 14 means we should not judge others who just don't get it.

I am picking up there. This page will examine:
1) Why I DON'T believe the NT encourages disregarding the 2nd commandment (in spirit or letter)
2) Matters of Conscience: Why Romans 14 liberty does NOT settle the issue satisfactorily
3) "Then what about the 4th Commandment? Gotta go there, if you're gonna go here!"
4) A call for repentance to pastors who endorsed this film

1) Why I DON'T believe the NT encourages disregarding the 2nd commandment (in spirit or letter)

I just have to assume you've read, or will read Jim's commentary, where he first argues that Jesus redefined the application of the Law (which of course I agree with), but he believes this applies to the extent that we do not need to observe any such commandments today. As a salvation issue, I'll agree that we don't. Jesus eradicated the Law's power to "save," but a point worth beginning with is that He did not eradicate the Old Testament itself, or our need/ privilege to read it. Jesus "fulfilled, not abolished," the Law and/or the Prophets!  I also concur - as said one page 1 - that Jesus Christ IS the image of the invisible God, with the addendum that we, the church, are now the only "visible representation" of God specifically allowed (prove me wrong...) or even encouraged by scripture.

Two great points Jim used to illustrate that one does NOT need to observe the 2nd Commandment any longer are

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." Eph 2:13-16 (NIV)

and, more succinctly

" In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13 (NKJ)

Please, I do NOT believe "commandment keeping" to be a salvation issue. The above scriptures, however, are discussing the Law only in relation to salvation. What I propose is that what Jesus made obsolete was the idea that observing (or not observing) the Law had the power to save (or to condemn). The relevant question is whether we can still today study the Old Testament to better know what God requires of us AFTER we're saved? Or BECAUSE we're saved? Of course we no longer sacrifice bulls and goats, travel to Jerusalem to worship, stone homosexuals, etc. Many have said however, that what Jesus did not alter by His death - or specifically address - remains valid, such as prohibitions against witchcraft or bestiality for instance. We have to admit that the NT nowhere says not to "lay with" animals, so already it's become hard to argue that the entire OT "law" is simply invalid today, "thanks to Jesus." But do the Commandments, Law and Prophets still offer us practical applications which help us to be God-pleasers?

While Jim's article and this debate focus on the 2nd Commandment, we must confess that IF one can rule out observance of the 2nd Commandment, then we MUST also allow ourselves and others the "liberty" to not observe any or all of them! So, if someone says that the above scriptures rule out the need to not "make or worship" images of God, then that person must be prepared to support the idea that it's now okay to murder, lie, commit adultery, and a few other things listed in the other 9. No reasonable Christian would argue that of course, but the selective process of singling one out (because it is unpopular?), does logically allow for just that.

Quite simply, Jesus said he did NOT come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. Further, He pronounces a special blessing upon those "keep" the Law and TEACH OTHERS to do so, but warns those who do not - especially those that also encourage others NOT TO! (Matthew 5:17-19)  The Law taught us that we cannot please God's righteous requirements as a means of salvation. This does not eradicate the practical observance of what God has wisely instructed though, both for our individual benefit, and that of society as whole (Christian and non), especially to those who wish to be "greatest in the kingdom of heaven" versus those who will be the least (Matt 5:20). Of course there will be murderers, adulterers, idol-worshippers, and even worse "law-breakers" in heaven, thanks to Jesus! It's not a salvation issue...

But for the elect, who DO wish to demonstrate love for Jesus, HE also told us specifically how to do so:

"If you love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15

Is Jesus God? Is He the very Word of God, "now in flesh appearing?" Then "God's" 10 Commandments given through Moses, as well as the Law and Prophets, are also Jesus's letter to us. (It's not like there was a pre-incarnate Jesus "up there" saying, "Dad... you're being way too legalistic! I'm gonna go down there and tell them this is all bunk one day anyway...")

Of course Jesus also said that the greatest commandment was to love one another. He even said that by "loving God with all our strength... and loving our neighbor..." we fulfill the heart of the 10 Commandments.

As to the first part of that though, HOW do we show our love for God?

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." 1John 5:3

I mention these passages (with the word "commandments") because Jim above found a passage that emphasized that our SALVATION (our "peace," below) is not dependant upon "commandments," but in Jim's context he suggests that the passage is somehow not referring specifically to salvation. He rather seems to suggest that they do not apply at all, in matters of faith and practice.

For he himself is our PEACE (emphasis mine), who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

I argue that the commandments themselves are still active, although breaking them certainly does not get one automatically "translated from the kingdom of his dear Son!" Even though we fail sometimes, we are secure in God's love for us, and Jesus' redemptive work of "getting us into heaven" - even when we fail to keep His greatest commandments, to love God, or to love one another. BUT we are not just carte blanche relieved of genuinely trying, nor of repenting. The Apostle John (no legalist, mind you!) had more to say about keeping God's commandments:

1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Enough of that! If you think that keeping God's Commandments (in at least a generic sense) is a waste of time... then you are in the wrong place I guess.
 

But as to the specific sense, let me ask you a simple question, about whether the Old Testament has SOME value still, in matters of faith and practice:

Exactly WHAT "scriptures" were Paul referring to when he said

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"  ?

We all know the answer. The "New Testament" was not compiled at that time, and most theologians will agree that Paul had no idea his writings would later be called "scripture." He was referring specifically and ONLY to the Old Testament.  Even if that's a bad argument, the relevant question here is,  "IS Exodus Chapter 20 (containing The 10 Commandments),  SOMEHOW   still profitable for doctrine... CORRECTION... instruction in righteousness..."

... or isn't it?

Specific to this topic (Mel Gibson's Passion), ALL of early Apostolic, Protestant, and Reformation church history prior to "the movie age" has said YES, by saying NO to images of God or Jesus in their churches, teaching and worship. The historical Protestant church has always said "YES, IT IS a violation of both the spirit and letter of the 2nd Commandment to make artwork depicting Jesus Christ." From these early Reformation (ie, breaking away from the Catholic church) documents (self-described as "pure evangelical Protestantism"), and covered much more in-depth in the article I first sent out The Passion & The 2nd Commandment :

"The Heidelberg Cathecism (1563 A.D.) Lord's Day 35, Q/A 96-98 reads as follows:

 

Q. What does God require in the Second Commandment? A. We are not to make an image of God in any way, nor to worship him in any other manner than he has commanded in his Word (Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18-25; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:23; Lev. 10:1-7; Deut. 12:30; 1 Sam. 15:22-23; Matt. 15:9; John 4:23-24).

 

Q. May we then not make any image at all? A. God cannot and may not be visibly portrayed in any way. Creatures may be portrayed, but God forbids us to make or have any images of them in order to worship them or to serve God through them (Ex. 34:13-14, 17; Num. 33:52; 2 Kgs. 18:4-5; Isa. 40:25).

 

Q. But may images not be tolerated in the churches as "books for the laity?" A. No, for we should not be wiser than God. He wants his people to be taught not by means of dumb images but by the living preaching of his Word (Jer. 10:8; Hab. 2:18-20; Rom. 10:14-15, 17; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:19).

 

"The Westminster Larger Catechism (1648 A.D.) has this to say in Q/A 108-110:

 

Q. What are the duties required in the Second Commandment? A. The duties required in the Second Commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him; as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry (Deut. 32:46;-47; Matt. 28:20; Acts 2:42; 1 Tim. 6:13-14; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 5:20; Deut. 17:18-19; 2 Tim. 4:2).

 

"These two confessional statements give us a "handle" on what the Ten Commandments teach, not merely with regard to the letter of the Law, but also what its spiritual interpretation entails. It is noteworthy that when the modern Church convenes to discuss a major film about the life of Jesus, no one mentions the relevance or applicability of the Ten Commandments, especially of the 2nd commandment."
Ron Gleason The Passion & The 2nd Commandment


Jim nor I cannot give "the final word" on this issue. Now I don't want to short-change either of us, but I must submit that theologians *probably* greater than ourselves have wrestled with this, and in the past history of the Protestant church, rebuked Catholicism's assumed "liberty" of adding to the instruction of God's word by papal proclamation, etc, and especially to produce "images" to aid in the worship of God, or for teaching people about Jesus Christ. And it's not like art wasn't popular then either, or that nobody thought what a great idea it might be to depict Jesus in ways other than through His word and our lives alone. But the collective wisdom of those who DIED to get the Word of God to us in English, and who DIED to set us free from "legalistic salvation" also said NO to movies, before they were even invented. They said YES to "observing" the 2nd Commandment, not in a legalistic restrictive fashion, but out of a strong motivation to honor God by obeying the spirit of the Old Testament.

Today of course, we worship (teach, evangelize, etc, - as these are also acts of worship)  not via legalistic regulations or formulas. As Jesus said, "true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." John 4:23  

I submit that this does not mean "we do whatever we want" however, but rather, that we honestly strive to seek and to obey God in matters of worship (teaching, evangelism, etc,), trusting that HE KNOWS BEST and HAS NOT left us without a plan! We can of course be "led by the Spirit" in our worship - perhaps even in ways not described "by the book" - but honestly, can we do so in ways that go against the book? And especially, can we do so and still claim to be worshipping "...in truth?"

The Old Testament (that again...) gives a few examples of those who "worshipped" or "rendered God service" in ways NOT prescribed by Him (I'll cite them specifically later, but those who care enough to actually read this far are surely familiar enough with them):

The challenge to the reader is to decide whether these examples are significant today.
- The priests who offered strange fire.
- The carriers of the ark who touched it.
- Saul's "sacrifice" of the animals that God had said to utterly destroy.
(None of these stories end pleasantly, by the way.)

Yes, of course I realize this is now is the "church age" / "age of grace" and God does not USUALLY execute swift judgment for those things that oppose His revealed will. But I must ask you to consider: DO these Old Testament stories offer any real insight into how God might eventually deal with those who have "Lord, Lord, done marvelous works in Your name..." but went against what He himself has ordained? The answer is found in the New Testament:

"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition,
      (I.E. - the stories in the Old Testament are indeed examples to instruct us in today's matters!)
Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." - 1 Corinthians 10:10-14

Yes, the Old Testament pages are extremely practical to us today, in defining how we live out our faith in Jesus Christ - even in how we share Him, and His story. These examples are intended keep us from "committing idolatry," or from "offering strange fire," by worshipping or serving God in a way that He has specified not to. It's not enough to think that Jesus never stood still for a portrait artist as if this were by chance ; we know that He was faithfully obedient to the Father's will, in every minute of every day. If God wanted us to have an artistic image of Christ to use for evangelistic purposes, we would have one. For those that argue that Jesus' Incarnation "did away with" the injunction against images, why then did He not offer us an image of Himself as proof, or teach otherwise? In fact, He could have just as easily declared Himself Lord of the Idols and Images (as He did Lord of the Sabbath) simply by declaring Himself to be God, then having a picture made - and really annoying the Sanhedrien! Rather, Jesus submitted to the spirit - and especially the intent - of the 2nd Commandment by abstaining from such.

Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. His scourging did not remove any pages. Anything which Jesus' life (teachings), death, and/or resurrection did not specifically change from the Old Testament method faith and practice - or that was not addressed in detail in the New Testament - still has (at minimum) a practical spiritual application for today's faith and practice. I know this goes against what people (myself included) want to believe today in regards to evangelistic movies, but church history strongly argues "my side" of this debate. There is simply no artwork depicting Christ "signed" by the early church, because they knew (or trusted God's command) that such images would be inaccurate representations of Christ, which would not truly reflect God in the first place, and would ultimately be used for idol worship. Nor is there any NT reason or example that they took the chance to "improvise" beyond the written Word (i.e., the apostles did not put on Passion Plays even though they had all the right players still present ; they built no statues depicting the crucifixion or even ascension to the throne; they simply lived and preached the simple gospel, using words and the Spirit's power alone.). The Reformation Era church had the same opportunities and temptations to "proclaim Christ" via their day's popular media, but rather than profess their "new movement" to be wiser than God, they likewise, emphatically rejected the notion.

To be honest, most of us today do not even know the history of Protestantism, nor what the significance of the above quoted books even are. Your pastor probably does though. (If they are honest, they may have been kicking themselves while reading the above quotes!) There are only a few possible logical reasons (below) why most modern pastors told people to go to this film however, without ever mentioning the 2nd Commandment, the possibility (however remote) of committing idolatry, or the above staples of Protestant history to us all. Erring on the side of charity, I'll first say the over-riding reason for most, is that they probably took another pastor/celebrity's recommendation (who saw an early release) AND HONESTLY BELIEVED it was an opportunity to share the gospel, AND an action which God would also approve of. That foundation laid as close to universal, allow me to submit that the first two below are most likely ALSO the case, among sincere men of God, as to why they endorsed this movie:

1) "Whoa!" Never even heard of the Protestant Reformation; never pondered how the 2nd Commandment might apply to this issue; and/or never considered that an endorsement could at very minimum be an endorsement for someone to violate their conscience
2) "D'oh!" Heard of it, perhaps even aced the above material on a test at some point, but has since honestly forgotten about it
3) "Well..." Yeah, it maybe flashed through his mind, but then thought "Really... it's just a movie. The possible good far outweighs the bad..."
4) "Oh, No" Really wrestled with it, but "got caught up in the rush" and gave in, keeping quiet about his personal convictions - now repentant
5) "Bah!" Definitely knew about it, but disagreed or disregarded, and simply decided it was okay to lead people in a path opposite of what the Reformers accomplished with their lives - and deaths
6) (Evil laughter) Is an active part of some grand conspiracy to re-introduce Catholic authority to all Protestant churches

Like I said, I'm sure #1 or #2 covers most pastors, but those are the most logical choices I can think of, at this point.  Selah.

All of them are forgivable by the way. If any of the material or links on this site has even pricked your heart, feel free to scroll to Section 4, on repentance for endorsing this film.

2) Matters of Conscience: Why Romans 14 liberty does NOT settle the issue satisfactorily for me
3) "Then what about the 4th Commandment? Gotta go there, if you're gonna go here!"
                    Please E-mail Me when parts 2 and 3 are added to this article

4) A call for repentance to pastors who endorsed this film

Possibly the most controversial section of this site, please understand that I do not intend for this brief plea to be offered in a harsh or condemning manner. Most of us were simply not aware of the possible challenges this movie presents us with, and may God grant me the grace to extend His grace to others who are just finding out about these issues here. I'll succinctly list first "Why" repentance is in order, (you may not agree with all, but one or more should be enough to make a public statement) and then the "How" to go about it in a practical, non-fanatic way (assuming wailing, gnashing, tears, sackcloth and ashes are not your style, that is...)

WHY repentance is in order:   "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

1) The Mirian/Catholic theology in this film (while subtle) and additions to the Word of God makes the film un-endorsable by Protestant pastors.

2) Whether you believe movies depicting Christ are in violation of the 2nd commandment, there are many (okay, "more and more") today who DO see it as such. This is now a viable topic, and church leaders should be teaching it as such, so that those in their care can study the issue at face value, and become "fully persuaded." To date, this topic of movies depicting Christ has not been largely raised within Christian circles, but to have left it ignored for the past several decades (in light of Protestant Reformation teachings) is something of a sin of omission.

3) By endorsing this or any "Jesus film," you have possibly violated a Commandment of God, and encouraged others to do so.

4) If not a commandment, you may have led some people into a violation of their own conscience, either in regard to the 2nd Commandment, or in regards to seeing movies in general, if you encouraged attendance at this particular one (or especially, do so for future movies).

HOW to make a public statement (completely adaptable for your use and situation):
"Folks, we have some old business to clean up here for just a minute. Earlier this year, I/we endorsed the Mel Gibson movie "The Passion of the Christ" from this pulpit. While not aware of it at the time, certain authors from various backgrounds have raised some very real concerns about this film that you should be aware of, and which make me think it might not have been a 100% proper thing to do, to endorse this film...

"Some have noted that there is some really bad theology in the movie, that frankly, flew right past most of it. It's subtle, but there are some worthwhile commentaries out there which show how unscriptural the movie was in certain ways. As such, I cannot give the movie the whole-hearted endorsement I previously did, before seeing it...

"Also, other commentaries have raised the point that ANY movies depicting Jesus Christ MAY be in violation of the 2nd Commandment, in regards to making any image of God, who Jesus Christ certainly is! While this particular point is arguable, I wouldn't want to be guilty of telling you that something was okay, when there's a strong argument that God's word says it's not. Frankly, I'd never considered the idea myself, but after some study, I can see that the arguments against such artistic depictions do have a degree of merit, which I should look into further and which many of you might want to consider in your walk with the Lord, before deciding to see future films...

"Finally, even if it's not a violation of the 2nd Commandment per se, if someone thinks it is, then I now see that my personal endorsement may have led certain of you to go against your conscience, either in regards to the 2nd commandment, or perhaps just to seeing movies in general. If I did, please accept my public apology for doing so. Especially if the arguments I've mentioned have even more merit than I now see, please accept my apology for possibly leading you astray from what scripture teaches about Christ's historical life, as this movie contained some add-ons that didn't really seem bad when we watched it, but ultimately are not truly scriptural, and have caused a fair amount of concern to others...

"That said, I do acknowledge that God can still use this movie, but mainly because He uses all things for the good of those He calls, just as Romans 8:28 teaches. But as Christian leaders, we have to be selective in what we publicly endorse from the pulpit, and just let God be God and use the good and the bad in this world however He chooses, for His purposes. From now on, may God give us the faith and grace to just stick to the plain old teaching and preaching of the gospel when it comes to proclaiming Christ; that, and hopefully to offer up lives that Jesus Christ can show Himself to others through us! And we certainly won't be endorsing any movies in the future that we haven't personally seen and discussed among our leadership. Thank you (and close in a prayer of your choosing).

Really, it's not rocket-science, legalism, or fanaticism! Just a few simple honest words
that express the possibility that churches may have made a mistake on this issue will go a long way!
Allow me to express that this site is completely non-commercial and offered only with the intent of
glorifying the real Jesus Christ, then say that you are free / may want to mention or print this URL
so people have an idea what you're referring to, and as a resource for study and becoming fully persuaded
themselves - one way or another!   www.anotherchrist.com
(Yeh, I know the url is a bit abrasive and already makes a statement; sorry about that.
I actually considered - and decided against - "theabomination.com"
Be glad I'm not asking you to refer people to THAT!)

Also I would love to hear from you if you've taken these words to heart, and now made such a public statement based upon this site. I'd like to post your comments below, so that other leaders who may consider this action can know they're not alone, and perhaps be all the more encouraged to do likewise. Thanks, Guy Malone