I found myself in great agreement with Brian McLaren's article. Since when do we need a Hollywood director to do our evangelism for us? I especially appreciate him comparing the transforming power of Christian love to simply showing people a movie. In the end, that's all The Passion is. It's just a movie. Even if we use it as a ministry tool, it is still up to us to teach the message of Christ's ministry and the redemptive significance of his death, which Mel portrays in such detail.

First of all, Kyle, I agree with your comment. Secondly (and much longer) it seems to me that the primary points of contention between the three authors' viewpoints is about style of evangelism, not about "The Passion of Christ." One thing I have wrestled with in my life in ministry is coming to grips with the fact that it is perfectly okay that some things "work" for some people & churches and other things "work" for others. I believe this is by God's design. Our work as believers is to find our place in that design. I don't know of a single person who has the ability to reach every person they meet for Christ. I do know people who can reach a large percentage of people that cross their paths, but there is going to be a percentage that just don't connect with even the most "connectable" person. Then there are people who are not able to reach the masses--don't have that kind of personality. But, that percentage, even if it is a small percentage, of people they can reach are uniquely reached by them, making them absolutely necessary for the evangelism of the world. The problems and frustrations come when people strive to be a type of evangelist they are not called or designed to be OR when people strive to make others who are not called and designed to be their type of evangelist into their type of evangelist. I fault all three authors on this count as they each give the impression that any other method of doing ministry is flawed (oddly, Warren is probably the most diplomatic on this point when he says "...it takes all kinds of approaches to reach all kinds of people, and not all Americans are alike. I could name a thousand different niches in our culture, and postmoderns are just one of the many groups Jesus died for." but then the rest of his message counteracts that statement a bit). In my observation and experience, there are many people who come to Christ and are encouraged in their walks through means that make me want to gag (cheesy ccm, conferences, email forwards, etc.). Because I find them cheesy or even laughable doesn't mean they aren't effective at all, just not to me. So then I take it as my job to find others like me and reach them with what will be more meaningful to them. Am I going to petition for the cancellation of the next "Women of the Home" conference or seek to have all Elizabeth George books and Precious Moments figurines removed from Christian bookstores around the country? Of course not. To each her own. The responsibility for understanding who I am in Christ and how He wants me to be a light in His world is squarely on my shoulders. If I let myself be intimidated into being someone that I'm not because it works for the girl next door, can I blame her for that? If a pastor lets his/her style be unnaturally shaped by Warren's "wave-catching challenge"--either by following mindlessly along with it, or by staunchly rebelling against it--is it appropriate to blame Warren for that? His message is valuable to those desinged to minister in a similar style. There's no reason for the rest of us to be angered by that. I see it as more productive to acknowledge that, yes, a church having a mass market type approach using "The Passion of Christ" as a tool for witnessing is a valuable and effective means to communicate the gospel to those who are wired to be reached in that way. And, yes, it is equally valid for a church NOT to have a mass market type approach using "The Passion of Christ" as a tool for witnessing in order to reach those who are wired to be turned off by such a thing. We need both, not just one or the other. In the end, does it matter which church is bigger? more popular? has more cool kids? I don't think so. I trust that both camps will walk through the pearly gates and hear God say, "Well done, my good and faithful servant. You walked in obedience and reached those I called you to reach and Suzie led a thousand people to my Son by her obedience and Nancy led one person to my Son by her obedience--but my kingdom would be just as incomplete without the one as it would be without the thousand." -Beth

I agree, Beth. Actually, on thing Warren wrote that I appreciated is that when it comes to evangelistic styles, it's not a question of either/or. When a church buys out 17 screens for a movie, that doesn't necessarily mean they're neglecting other forms of evangelism. That's a very good point.

Wowzers, not a big fan of Warren's response. I do agree that it doesn't have to be an either/or thing, but one of his ideas really bothered me: "No doubt, some will defend their failure to use this moment and this incredible tool for Christ with personal, theological, or philosophical defenses. Some churches would rather be cool, hip, or cutting-edge, than reach more people for Christ." I think his construction in using "failure" is a bit over the top. It implies he knows "this moment" to be something akin to knowing the gospel as truth. He seems far too eager to brush aside objections to his position, saying they would be "defensive". Why could they not be assertive? And how is using a personal, theologic, or philosophical defense automatically a bad thing? I was also rather offended by the following pronouncement: "I can't imagine any pastor being ashamed or reluctant to use a film about the Cross." They must not be a real pastor then? Because he says "both/and, not either/or" doesn't necessitate people agree with his position. Let me give just such objection a pastor or missionary might have. You are working in North Africa, and Jim Caviezel still looks a bit too fair skinned for your tastes. If anyone thinks that's a non-issue, they could look into the past controversy within a community of believers at BIOLA over their Jesus mural. It also struck me as very odd that a guy so hyped up (oops, there's my bias) on using cinema for evangalism would point the finger at other, supposedly lesser, churches that "would rather be cool, hip, or cutting-edge". I found Warner's response to be a bit out of place according to the Editor's note. While I believe he spoke as to the effectiveness of the ministry in using the film, I think it did nothing to bolster the claim that it was the best opportunity in 2000 years. The headcount he gave seemed irrelevant. On a more personal note (perhaps the "personal defense" Warren speaks of?), I wanted to share my own bitterness tied to this movie. It really has nothing to do with "The Passion" itself, but the obsession over it that I, and I'd assume countless others, encounted. I'm not the most social guy, sometimes I don't even do hot in small groups. As a result, I find it tougher to regularly attend church. Not trying to say this is the only reason, mind you, but it's a contributing factor. So anyway, after not seeing many of my friends for an extended period, I return to a service, only to be confronted by what I'll call "Passion Mania". I really felt hurt that many people seemed far more interested in getting me to a showing ASAP, as opposed to seeing how I was doing or what was new. Now, I don't share this so I can throw a pity party. Rather, it's to illustrate the importance of balance in ministry, and a negative consequence if you're not careful. The point is here I was, a member of the Church, feeling somewhat outside the loop (never did see the film). Apparently, the only way to get inside that loop was to fork over $10 (did I mention I think the theater is a TOTAL rip?) and a few hours. I'm quite sure I wasn't the only one. How many out there that aren't believers walked out of services feeling the same? Unfortunately, I fear this wasn't very constructive, as I'm a bit grouchy.

I have several thoughts about this, and much of it comes out of my experiences and temprament, so bear with me as talk about myself for a little while. I think of myself as a pretty intellectual Christian. I don't like raising my hands in the service, though many in my church do. I resonate with the depth of meaning and symbolism in most liturgy, even though most of my life has been spent in evangelical churches which are much less formally structured. I like studying, understanding, asking questions. And I really can't stand most everthing on the shelves of most Christian bookstores. I was deeply moved by "The Passion," however, in part because there were so many echoes of the symbolism of medieval sacred art in it, and in part because of how unflinching it was about the torture Jesus endured. Even if the brutality was magnified from the Gospel accounts, I still felt it was done for its artistic effect, in keeping with the point of the film. Most friends of mine who are not Christians who saw the film didn't like it, at the very least, or were even offended by it. In some cases, I think, it was because they don't know much about Jesus and didn't have a context for the movie, but other times it was because they do indeed reject Jesus as the Messiah, and don't like being confronted with a message they disagree with. For the former case, I think it is good, and even important, that Christians work to help clarify who Jesus is, and why, in many cases, the film resonates so deeply with us. My mother has walked with friend of hers through several years of searching and finally coming to faith in Christ, and this film was an excellent curiosity-builder for this friend, which the two of them used to dig deeper into the Gospel accounts and really examine who Jesus was and why he suffered. Doing this also includes being honest about what in the film we don't believe. Automatically proclaiming this film as the Gospel is foolish and makes Christians look like lemmings, a niche market open to any clever marketing scheme. But I think we should also be careful about agreeing too quickly with non-Christians who didn't like the film, lest we give the impression that we don't really think Jesus is the only way to the Father. If people who see the film are offended by what we do actually believe, we must love them and show mercy, but we musn't backpedal on our fidelity to the truths that define our faith. I've read Warren's "The Purpose-Driven Life", and to be frank, I'm not fond of his penchant for self-promotion and his writing leaves a lot to be desired. But it sure seems like he's leading a ministry that is doing really good things, and I can imagine his genuine frustration at people who pooh-pooh his church's success. "Shouldn't we want to reach everyone we can with the Gospel message?" he must be thinking. Nevertheless, his contempt at people who reject his model of ministry ("Some churches would rather be cool, hip, or cutting-edge, than reach more people for Christ") is disappointing. In this case, however, it seems to me like many evangelical churches aren't being careful enough about actually thinking about "The Passion." "The best outreach opportunity in 2,000 years" is a slogan, crafted by a marketing firm to sell tickets, and the church should be very wary of being manipulated to make money. That trap is what I think Warren misses more than anything, and what makes me so disgusted about the promo mentioned in the articles. That Brandon had to shell out $10 for the movie is a good example of this. Churches selling tickets is far too similar to the activities that Jesus himself drove out of the temple. In my world, I think it would be much more genuine for church members to invite their neighbor to a showing and have a good discussion over coffee afterwards, than for churches to become ticket agents. But snickering at a church that holds "The Passion" discussion seminars? How are discussion groups bad or manipulative? How we spread the good news is up for discussion and has many answers. Whether to share it or not is, I think, not that tough of a question.