You know how sometimes you hear about violent films, then you see them and they’re not really that bad? The Passion of the Christ isn’t one of those films. I don’t really know what I could say that’s not been said by a thousand people already. I could probably pick holes in the theology, and there’s certainly some imagery I didn’t understand, but as films about Christ go it’s about the best I’ve seen. See it, make up your own mind, and then if it impacts you, maybe it’s a sign God wants you to do something more worthwhile than buy cheep tat.

Anyway, a few observations. You might not want to read them if you’ve not yet seen the film. Before I start; to say again that The Passion is easily the most accurate and powerful film of this you’re ever likely to see. With the exception of my third point these are all merely observations rather than criticisms.

• Is the woman caught in adultery generally thought to be Mary Magdalene? Have I missed that in the gospels somewhere?
• You can’t call this anti-Semitic without calling the gospels themselves anti-Semitic. From some quarters, maybe that was the point.
• There’s some quite blatant idolisation of Mary going on in this film. Given that there are a fair few moments which seem to come from Catholic tradition rather than scripture, that’s not entirely surprising. But Gibson seemed to be trying to be trying to explain away the clear Biblical evidence that Jesus had biological brothers.
• I was somewhat unnerved by some of the Satan imagery. I accept that could have been the idea, but I would have liked to have understood it. I’m thinking particularly of the bizarre child thing he’s holding in the crowd, and of the thing that growls at Judas after Jesus falls over the wall.
• The film’s strong point is definitely in the main narrative. The flashbacks revert to your more traditional cheesy Jesus style.
• What’s with the Jesus invented tables thing?

It’s taken me a few weeks to make something I wanted to publish out of this, so you’ll have to forgive the use of some now rather outdated references. Sorry about that.

About five years ago I went to Bristol for the annual Methodist Youth Conference. I only ever went the once, but apparently it’s quite a highly respected body if you move in certain circles. From what I can gather that’s mostly people who, for all their talk of ecumenism, are quite precious about denominational preservation. One issue that historically divides denominations is that of baptism and thus, perhaps unsurprisingly, it featured quite prominently on the youth conference agenda.

Recently Thomas has been stirring up interdenominational debate on Dan’s housemate James’s blog; Catholic and Loving It. One of the things he’s been asking is whether or not he should get baptised, and James has (quite rightly) been encouraging him. When I first started thinking about this post, I was ready to point out that while Jesus instructs his disciples to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he never says you must be baptised in the same way that he says you must be born again. Since that time I posted a long passage from Hebrews, including chapter 10, verse 22 which makes the importance of baptism quite clear.

Ultimately, it is the question of whether I should be baptised that bothers me more. This can be argued two ways:

1. My infant baptism wasn’t biblical and therefore doesn’t count. I should do it again.
2. I was baptised as an infant and therefore do not need to do it again. It may even be wrong to do so.

This was the issue debated by Methodist Youth Conference. From memory, the argument mainly came from the line in the Nicene Creed stating I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, placing a great deal of emphasis on the word one. To argue such a hard line from only a non-biblical source, particularly one so vague, seems a little odd. The Nicene Creed however, was written at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, possibly predating the canonisation of scripture. The question of how the Biblical canon was drawn up is something that has always interested me, now more than ever after reading Manifesto for a Revolution, and one to which I have never been able to find a satisfactory answer.

Assuming that we take the Bible to be the only authority on the matter, then I don’t believe second baptism is ever expressly forbidden, though it is quite obvious that it shouldn’t be necessary. If though, as is hinted at several times (1,2,3), it is not possible to be saved unless we have confessed and been baptised in water and the spirit in that order, then I have a problem. I do need to be baptised, and it wouldn’t be for the second time, as the first didn’t really count.

Both the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Westminster Confession of Faith, two confessions from fairly close to the time of the reformation, retain infant baptism as a sacrament of the church. By my interpretation their sole reason for doing so is that the child of one that is saved by grace is presumed saved, much as a child of Adam is presumed fallen—a principle which I don’t believe can be said to stand up either biblically or evidentially.

So after all that I’m no closer to an answer, though I do know that should I ever have children they won’t be baptised as babies.

There are 27,000 registered heroin addicts in Bradford. I’m beginning to get a sense of why God might have called me here. Maybe I’ll have more to say when that’s had some time to sink in.

There’s been a lot written about Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, both by those who’ve seen it and by those who haven’t. I’m going to hold off until I have, but this article from the Guardian is a little light relief from what most are saying.

I read this this-morning and found it quite encouraging:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, It is mine to avenge; I will repay, and again, The Lord will judge his people. It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. You sympathised with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.

So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. For in just a very little while,

He who is coming will come and will not delay.

But my righteous one will live by faith.

And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him.

But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

Hebrews (NIV)

I’ve spent the weekend playing in the intermural—a competition of ten teams playing ten different sports over two days. I don’t play sport. I had to buy some trainers especially (something I didn’t want to do, as they’re now not expecting to ship the Blackspot until September). I ache.

The other thing I just had to mention was this quote from a Union Councillor in Thursday’s meeting. I was so amazed I wrote it down word for word:

Can you imagine the Union losing the license to run the FND in the Basement? That would be the most horrible thing in the world!

Union Council, 04/03/2004