Customer Reviews

Showtime for the Sheep? The Church and the Passion of the Christ

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

PLEASE I BEG YOU. I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CONVINCE YOU ENOUGH SO THAT YOU CAN READ THIS BOOK. IT IS A VERY TIMELY AND CRUCIAL BOOK THAT BEGS YOUR READING IF YOU HAVE WATCHED MEL GIBSON'S "THE PASSION OF" OR ARE THINKING OF WATCHING IT. THIS BOOK CLEARS OUT A LOT OF SPIRITUAL ERRORS AND SEEKS TO PRESENT THE GOOD NEWS IN A PURE WAY. THE GOOD NEWS IS STILL TRUE BUT SAD TO SAY MANY PEOPLE ARE POLLUTING THE GOOD NEWS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT SIMPLY PRESENT IT IN ITS PURITY. THIS BOOK CLEARS OUT MANY ERRORS AND SEEKS TO PRESENT THE PURE GOOD NEWS.

Like the Biblical Bereans that he seeks to emulate, Mr. McMahon checked the Scriptures in the process of reviewing Mr. Gibson's movie. This book shows why this is so necessary for all of us. We dare not depend on men and their personal beliefs when eternity is the issue. The Bible has proven itself true and utterly reliable. Is the "Passion of th Christ" true and reliable? Read Showtime for the Sheep, compare both to Scripture and you will find Mr. McMahon to be the truth teller. Your future depends on it!

I have enjoyed many of T.A. McMahons writings. This one does not dissapoint at all. It is an extremely relevent topic for today's evangelical church. It is carfully and logically laid out. It looks at the topic of the real passion of Christ as compared to the movie version in a Biblical fashion. Get it and read it...

I agree with the writer of this book.

It is a sound book, and one of the points that I think the author makes especially well is that God is a jealous God, (you will find that in Scripture) and it (to me) doesn't fit to have a mortal man trying to accurately portray His [God's] only begotten Son.

One of the examples that the author uses is this: "Suppose my wife were to pick up my wallet and find a picture of model Cindy Crawford in the photo section, tucked in between the pictures of our children. With a hurt expression on her face, she asks me for an explanation. I reply that the beautiful model reminds me of her. Even if she recognizes that I am quite sincere, that does not completely erase her hurt feelings or the jealousy generated by the fact that someone-who was not she-was given a place in my "those-who-are-near-and-dear-to-me" photo collection. For the sake of our relationshiop, the truly loving thing to do would be to dump Cindy." [page 80 of "Showtime for the Sheep"] (The author cites Scripture

Now, you have people visualizing the image that they saw in the movie, praying while reviewing in their minds clips of the beatings, floggings, etc.

In addition to this, churches are using clips and images of the movie [The Passion] during worship time in Sunday church services.

Now, I want to please my Lord, and I don't know how these things; the visualizing of a man other than Jesus as a "symbol" of Jesus, etc., can be pleasing to Him.

This is just one of the important "issues", if you will, that the author raises in his book.

He presents facts and asks questions. He presents research, and reflects on his experiences as a former Roman Catholic in his book where the interest builds, rather than dissipates, as you read further into the book. (At least that's what I found.)
I recommend this book highly.

The book shows things I never noticed in the movie. It's important to compare everything "biblical" to scripture to make sure it is correct.

I remember when Mel Gibson's "The Passion" was first shown and started to draw the crowds. I was shocked that Christians flocked to see the thing. Worse! The film was being used as a tool for evangelism by mainline churches.
I tried to debate the matter with a church minister--a man who was glad to stand in the foyers of cinemas where this film was shown in order to counsel people on what to do now that they'd received this "witness."
I felt sad that his mind was closed to the view that the stance of "The Passion" was totally unbiblical.
And he wasn't alone.
Other churchgoers told me that I should see it first before I argued about it, although I knew that the story was not based on Scripture but on a vision of two Catholic nuns. I'd also read David Meyer's report on Last Trumpet Ministies regarding his thoughts on "The Passion."
However, I understood my detractors' point although, knowing of Gibson's Tridentine Catholicism and that his father was a Holocaust denier, I did not feel that as a Christian I ought to be watching this film. So I checked out parts of it on You Tube.
The Little of what I saw there was enough to convince me that the film was disgusting. I would have to agree with Newsweek's statement that it was "the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade" and with the New Yorker critic who called it "a sickening death trip, a grimly unilluminating procession of treachery, beatings, blood and agony."
And I'm agreeing with them merely from the clips I saw! They were enough for me to verify the accusations.
An atheist friend of mine after seeing "The Passion" said to me that the film was unscriptural and that the Gospels did not go into such details about Christ's scourging and crucifixion. As far as he was concerned, the film was a show of gratuitous violence, representing the sado-masochism rife in Romanist thinking.
It was interesting, to say the least, that an atheist could see that so clearly while apparently Christian groups were using this film as a tool for evangelism!
The parts I saw were weird and sinister that made me convinced that it was demon-inspired.
The female characters dressed similarly to nuns (yes, in the Israel of Christ's day!) and the music and the scenes were dark and foreboding.
One scene was that of a forearm and hand wriggling like a snake across the screen. The camera came back to show that the limb was attached to a woman who, having been stoned, was virtually crawling next to a standing figure representing Jesus. In the far distance stood a group of Pharisees dropping stones.
In the Gospels, the woman hadn't been stoned. She was about to be. So the depiction was unscriptural. It was also stupid. The Pharisees were so far away that they would have had to have incredible strength and accuracy in throwing stones such a distance. They would also have had to have incredible hearing to hear Jesus' rebuke.
Anyway, the Christians who were telling me that I should go to see the film before criticising it didn't seem to be bothered at all about the fact that it included unscriptural things.
If you are one such Christian, you ought to be worried because Christians are to believe how Christ died ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES [1 Cor 15:3-4] and not according to Tridentine Roman Catholic dogma, the visions of nuns or Hollywood's portrayal of that vision.
If you want set straight on "The Passion" whether you are a Christian or not, a book which deals with the subject in detail is "Showtime for the Sheep" subtitled "The Church and The Passion of the Christ" by T.A. McMahon.
McMahon, unlike myself, has obviously seen the "Passion" from beginning to end. And he is far better qualified than I am to write on anything to do with films. He is a holder of a master's degree in communications and worked in the movie industry for seventeen years, has researched and written numerous documentaries, and has scripted several feature films. He has written/produced many well-known Christian videos/DVDs and is co-host of three weekly radio programmes. As a former Roman Catholic he understands the thinking behind "The Passion"--which is more than those evangelicals do who have promoted that film to win converts.
This is an excellent book because, like all excellent books dealing with a subject, it focuses on the things which need to be focused on. It does so objectively and keeps emotions at bay--something, in my personal experience, that "The Passion" enthusiasts have not done in debates with me. Admittedly, most of those didn't know what a Tridentine Catholic was!
So Tom McMahon's writing is from having been an insider in the movie industry as well as the Catholic Church.
Mr McMahon deals with the actual medium: Are films a valid way of reporting the Gospel or parts of it? For one thing, he shows that movies are manipulators. And he shows how and why they manipulate.
He tells us, "The Word of God never appeals to one's emotions, nor does it persuade people on the basis of feelings. Though its truth may have an effect on our emotions, that consequence is always a by-product and never the means for spiritually transforming our lives. How, then," he asks, "could a movie that is attempting to communicate the subject matter of Scripture employ a method, i.e., the manipulation of emotions, that is contrary to God's Word?"
He not only tells us that such a thing is more than a little inconsistent but that "...a movie has no other options beyond manipulation because it can do nothing else and succeed."
So Tom McMahon starts by showing us that films are not a good medium for conveying the Gospel. And the above is only a small sample.
"Showtime..." also shows how bad translations of the Bible were used in the making of the film, meaning that it could not then convey a true biblical view. It deals with the Vatican's connection to "The Passion" and Mel Gibson's own views on it was well of his Tridentine position and how he thinks about Christ's suffering and death. There is also a chapter on the man who played Christ, James Caviezel. It deals with his experiences in doing so and with his religious beliefs.
There is a chapter on the overall Marian concept of the film. It is astonishing that those evangelicals who endorsed this film were blind to that aspect of the film. Gibson himself has openly stated that he believes that Mary is a co-redemptrix! Caviezel stated that he believed that "The Passion" was made by Mary for her Son (sic)!
In the chapter "Another Gospel" Mr McMahon makes this observant statement,"...sadly this film misses the punishment for our sins that Christ endured from God and focuses exclusively on the physical sufferings inflicted by men--which could never save, but only condemn us. This tragic misunderstanding is the very heart of the movie and must be corrected by anyone seeking to evangelize those who have been stirred to interest by viewing Gibson's film."
That is not likely to happen--as long as evangelists cannot see the what the very heart of this film is about.
That's why "Showtime for the Sheep" is a must for people who wish to become Christians. It will expose to them a false view of the meaning of Christ's sacrifice which we need to be saved. That in itself is enough to make me convinced that it is of the devil and not of God.

Discernment among evangelicals is at all all-time low tide, and this book is good because it challenges us to THINK, not go on feelings. How the movie makes you feel is a matter of Hollywood doing its job like the professional it is. If we judge the movie by emotional reaction and evangelical enthusiasm, it is a hit. But not when judged by the principles of the Word of God. Every evangelical owes it to himself to read this book.

In his book, "SHOWTIME for the SHEEP? The Church and The PASSION of The Christ", T.A. McMahon zeros in on misrepresentation of "The WORD of God from a Catholic perspective or, better said, a Catholic misrepresentation. Coming out of a Catholic background himself, his observations are very interesting, even thought provoking if not finally telling where "THE PASSION of The Christ" is concerned.

McMahon's focus is on the legitimacy of graphic representation of The WORD of God. The basis for his critique lies in the spoken or written WORD of God, which for McMahon seems to be the only legitimate media for the communication of TRUTH. For McMahon, the TRUTH of God's WORD is only preserved when communicated by means of spoken or printed words, in short, "preaching/teaching".

Ignoring for the moment the problem of receiving TRUTH without the help of the Spirit, and staying with McMahon in his focus on the way the TRUTH is presented, the media, by which TRUTH is presented, we need to look for a moment at the paradigm or filter through which the TRUTH is presented. For both the spoken and printed word, there is the matter of presentation, and context. Clearly McMahon has tried the Catholic context in the balances, and found it wanting, but what about the Protestant/Evangelical context? Suppose we take a step back from what both Catholics and Protestants have been calling "Church", the place from which the written and spoken WORD has been issuing forth for almost two thousand years. McMahon draws upon both A.W. Tozer, and Scripture to make his case against Catholics and the graphic arts.

What's an illiterate to do in a world of manhandlers who, in the first instance, insist on printing and preaching in languages unknown to the people, and in the final analysis, print and preach the WORD in such a way as to lead or maintain disciples away after themselves?

Any inquisition, be it Catholic, Protestant or even evangelical, is bound to fall victim to "... straining out gnats and swallowing camels." Here, once more we see the problem. What's been calling itself, "Church", is a big camel, but in the context of McMahon's critique of "THE PASSION", the gnats of Catholic mystics and visionaries have been strained out, while the only real camel has been left in.

Mel Gibson has done a magnificent job in his use of poetic license except for one thing. When he superimposed on the beaten body of Christ, Christ's words, spoken before he was ever beaten, "Greater love knoweth no man than this, but that a man should lay his life down for his friend." When Jesus said that, He was expressing "the state of the art" where love was concerned. That was the state of the art before the cross. At the cross a new kind of love was demonstrated, a love that is good for enemies, Romans 5:10. A Love that is good enough for friends is good enough to go to Church, but it is not good enough to be the Church. This is the great misrepresentation of what has been calling itself, "Church". Mel Gibson missed a wonderful opportunity to correct this misunderstanding, and sadly, T.A. McMahon seems to have missed it as well.

Near the end of his critique of "THE PASSION", and the use of graphic arts, McMahon quotes Paul's farewell address to the Ephesians elders, Acts 20:27-31: "... For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them..."

Whether or not the inspiration of The Spirit had Mel Gibson and graphic arts in view, Paul seems to be looking a little closer to home than that. His concern was with what he could already see happening in his own day, and which would only get worse upon his departure. When religious men love preeminence, 3rd John 9, they will ignore the TRUTH for the sake of their own ambition.

It is not just "the movies" that require special buildings. For almost as long as bricks and mortar have been available, those intent on creating their own religious down line have used special buildings, (not found in Scripture) to showcase their own images. McMahon seems to have left the Protestant/evangelical bent toward special buildings and programs out of his critique. Seems like "bricks and mortar or special buildings are a graphic art form all by themselves. TRUTH spoken in such a context is bound to have it's own special spin by the time it reaches the hearts and minds of the hearers.

Just one more thought where communicating the TRUTH about God is concerned, ignoring for the moment Romans 1:20, both John 17:21, and 1 Peter 3:1, 2 go a long way in commending demonstration over talk.

My question to T.A. is, "What has done more to distort our understanding of Christ's passion, the images of men which dominate what has been calling itself, "Church" or Mel Gibson's, "THE PASSION of The Christ?"

Jay Ferris, co-author: "NOT LEFT BEHIND - Going Back For The Offended"

T. A. McMahon wrote in the intro "This brief book is an attempt to sort through some of the issues critical to what is an extraordinary phenomenon in the contemporary evangelical church. Although it addresses Mel Gibson's blockbuster film, it does so only as something significantly symptomatic of those things that are progressively taking place within the evangelical community: the trend toward the use of entertainment and amusement to teach the Word of God, the trend toward the advancement of ecumenism....and the trend toward the subjective interpretation of Scriptures."

This book is an eye opener as McMahon challenges us to stay true to the Word. We are challenged to remember that tens of thousands have died horrendous deaths for rejecting what The Passion glorifies on the screen and for what millions of evangelicals are paying to see.

We are reminded that the Word of God is sufficient! It says so. T.A. McMahon expresses his greatest fear, that the body of Christ will lose sight of that critical truth.

This book is a must read for every Christian who desires to remain steadfast in the faith and avoid the "strong delusion" of man's ways in these last days.

Interesting, fun to read, and full of important information, much of which was passed over in the manic enthusiasm generated by this movie. I'm not sure that DannyBu2001 even read the book. McMahon didn't take anything away from Mel Gibson and his own passion for this movie. He never said that Mel wanted it to be used by the evangelical community.

The point is--the evangelicals are the ones who picked it up and ran away with it. "The greatest tool!" they said. But according to the Barna report, less than one-tenth of one percent said they converted to Christianity as a result of seeing the movie, and, perhaps even sadder, less than one-half of one percent said they had even been moved to evangelize more after watching. Seems like McMahon hit the nail on the head. Now the cleanup process is beginning--all those souls whose emotions were affected, without a true conversion--will a hardening toward the gospel set in?

Share this book with those who haven't yet watched the movie, or with those who might have been confused after seeing it. God doesn't need man's visuals to make His point. He has put His evidence in His creation and in His Word. I'd much rather stick to that. The statistics prove the hype over the movie was wrong.