or, perhaps, we have finally reached the point where emotion-based evangelism has met its end? perhaps the image of someone being mutilated, killed, and then ascending from death (though powerful for those 'in the know') is not enough to convince total life change. the reason being that life change will stick until the point when the violent images are forgotten...

perhaps there is something to the "catechumens" of the early church. having worked with the "heaven's gates, hell's flames" production I really have learned to see the value of process-evangelism over quick-hit emotionalism when it comes to someone following Jesus.

When I saw the Passion, without my children mind you, I was in a theater that was loaded with children far younger than mine.
What I saw was spiritual-brow beating the likes of which left me fuming, and it still illicits anger in me.
As far as the film goes my opinion ranges around "m'yeh," and that is because I'm far more informed and knowledgable about Roman Palestine and the Roman militaristic society.
But what I witness in that theater was enough for me to realize that the churches, if what happened in that theater is any measure, went insane/crazy/bizarro with that film.
I forsee twenty years from now having to deal with a lot of adult casualties who were spiritually abused with that movie. Not a fun prospect, I can assure you.

I believe the relative disappointment in the evangelistic vacuum left in the wake of “The Passion Of The Christ” is not due to lack of production value or the absence of effective secular publicity. I feel it is due to the misperception that the average “Christian” has about evangelism in general.

With Bill Bright’s convicting quote that less than two percent of “evangelical” Christians actively share their faith, and confirming personal experience, is it a coincidence that the church is shrinking and recent movies, while entertaining for club members, didn’t help? It seems that many churches’ congregants wait for people to run from the theatre seat to the pew, still smelling of butter-flavoring, asking, “Who is this Jesus?” Christians for the large part have abandoned their obligation and command to personally share their faith, considering it the job of the pastor, the movie, the elders or just someone else.

Movies like this and the upcoming Da Vinci Code are handy springboards for ongoing evangelical conversations. I took several lost friends to see the Passion, but it was because it would help illustrate the fact that God’s holy righteousness needed to be satisfied for our transgression of His law. Left alone, I’m afraid most people won’t change their 20- to 40-year old worldview because of a movie they see, or they are just as likely to change it back again. They need to hear. We need to tell them.

I will say up front that I never saw the movie, because I am an iconoclast. (No, I'm not looking down on those who saw it and aren't of the same flavor as I am.) However, I think the reasons the Passion was such a sorry evangelism tool are simple.
1. Christ's physical suffering at the hands of men is not the emphasis of the Gospel message. The Gospel turns on the concept of God's wrath being manifested upon Christ, a la Isaiah 53. It in not possible to visually demonstrate this message- ergo, the message of the Cross is blunted substantially in a visual medium.

2. It wasn't all that accurate. With apocryphal leanings, an Italian playing an Israeli Jew, etc., I can't even begin to imagine why so many thought such a film was going to be such a great tool anyway.

3. Movies are meant to be emotionally entertaining. A movie like this, with such graphic images and weighty undertones, was much more likely to either a.) entertain or b.) emotionally rape the audience than actually produce any sort of legitimate response to the Gospel.

4. It's not the Word of God. Romans 10 says it all: a movie with (as I understand it) an incomplete treatment of the actual texts od Scripture will always fail. The Gospel is language based, not visually based.

That's the short answer as to why I think the passion 'failed' as an evangelistic tool.

Skye, I agree with you that we can't see a particular movie as an evangelistic silver bullet. But even if Passion didn't have all of the propaganda for churches, wouldn't we still have needed to interact with it in some way?

Again, I don't disagree with your premise; I don't need to view The Da Vinci Code as the evangelistic opportunity of a lifetime. However, I think I need to interact with it. It looks like it is going to be a really good movie. I'm going to go see it. I assume that many if not most of the people who attend my church will see it.

I don't think that leading a boycott would be helpful. I'm not scared of Dan Brown's nonsense. I don't think pretending it doesn't exist will help either. The movie raises too many questions for new believers (the majority of my church). I feel as though I have to interact with the movie.

I'm planning on setting up a dialogue about the movie at a local restaurant after seeing it. I don't want to eat up a whole worship service talking about that book when there are whole books of the Bible I still haven't taught on.

I guess I am wondering if anyone else had ideas about how to talk about the movie/book without giving it too much airtime.

I share Bob's view that movies such as The Passion of the Christ, Narnia, Da Vinci Code are only connections into popular culture which can be used as springboards for conversations about the gospel.

I too was troubled by the Christian hype attached to Mel Gibson's film and am not at all surprised at the Barna research. Certainly it was a powerful film, but I found it indulgently violent, unsettling, deeply unpleasant with some strange esoteric overtones. Did it move (shock, upset, disturb?) movie goers? Yes, most certainly. Did it present the gospel or any coherent communication of God's purpose? Not from my recollection - it seemed nothing much more than a gruesome, harrowing reconstruction of Christ's suffering which I'm not sure I would watch again.

Certainly I think we can use media such as these to begin a dialogue about Christianity with non-Christians. However, I do think these 'springboard' moments occur regularly with many films and media-events and not just those where the church joins the great movie marketing machine.

I just love the way your site brings out the workings of our minds. We need to be challenged to use our head and hearts. I have added you to my blog as well. Thank you Lynda.

I was confused by the Passion of Christ as it is morbidly focused on the last hours of Jesus' death, little on his resurrection, and none on his life and teachings. This doesn't seem like true evangelism at all, but a quasi medieval representation of original sin theology gone bad... i.e. the warped medieval Catholic mindset is more apparent than the life of Christ.

I was moved in several ways by the movie, but only because I had a full frame of reference as a Christian and knew background others did not.

Media can be a good tool, but it cannot replace interacting with God's word in relational, missional community of real people. This is how God works... let's get over it already. God is always about the grassroots and usually never about mass undertakings driven by man-made agendas. Christian History is perfect evidence of this.

I saw the Passion twice, once in a theatre with a variety of people and once when a church had bought every seat for that showing. It was a great movie but I never considered it a suitable tool for evangelism. Rather, I found it leading me toward introspection as a Believer. It helped me to appreciate more the nature and intensity of Christ's suffering and the fact that I caused it.

I think that we in the church may have forgotten that the gospel "completed" is the gospel to which we have responded, and now celebrate by faith in a state of grace.

The complete gospel is not the trial of Christ, nor the creation of Christ, nor the crucifixion of Christ, nor the resurrection...the complete gospel...or good news is that we are new creation material in Christ...because He is the Creator, the Saviour, the King of Kings...we live because He lives!

No longer walking dead people, pretending to be alive, or worse yet, unaware of their "deadness" but rather we are alive in a living state with our Creator. The good news is that his work on the cross is finished in us...if we let it be.

I found the movie impacting and deeply moving. Unfortunately, I believe that it was regarded as good fiction the likes of "The Matrix", in which the main character, NEO, dies and is resurrected.

He is a cyberworld superhero in the movie, "The ONE". In light of movies like The Matrix, it is nearly impossible to distinguish its fictional heroic wonders from the substance of our Faith in Jesus Christ, in the minds of non-believers.

The Movie, "The Passion" ultimately has joined the pantheon of well spun tales of ficitonal characters of super human quality. I agree with Brian McLaren, "...show them a movement of people living like Jesus."

By the way, I went to the local video store chain to rent a copy of "The Passion" this week and found that they had only one VHS and no DVD copies for rent or purchase. The Movie could; not sustain its market power; why would we think it could change lives in any lasting and eternally meaningful way.

At best it is a movie to be watched at least once a year to visually remind us of Christ's sacrifice.

When will the Church learn? It's not about us! We crazily think that we can piggyback on this or that spectacular event and expect folks to flock to our churches. Let's get real! The Holy Spirit calls sinners with the Gospel. The Gospel is most effectively spread when we live humble lives of discipleship and invite others to do the same. History should inform us that nothing else works, and is a huge diversion from the cross-bearing life our Lord has called us to.

I pray the Lord comes soon and calls His Church to Himself! Amen! Come Lord Jesus!

Hello I am from Holland and want to make the following statement. Please forgive my mistakes in the spelling. I have a big big problem with this movie. Just because of the words from Matthew 27:46. In Dutch it says: Eli, Eli lama sabachtani, which means My God My God why have you abandoned me??

That was his real suffering, not the lashing he had to undergo or all other corporal punishments. Sample: many many people in history before and after Jesus Christ had to suffer from tremendous corporal suffering but even in the concentration camps during world war 2 people still felt the presence of God. Jesus was abandoned by God his father and totally alone.

Nobody can film that, not even Mel Gibson.

What is evangelizing? Go and tell it to the people with an open Bible in your hands. It makes me feel too terribly sad when people choose for emotion that never last long. The bible is stating facts and facts only. My friends, be careful with the dreamy and vague way of believing, because dreams don't come true. Only God's word is a real light and by God's word we get to know the Holy Spirit. Believing is not about "feeling well" but based on God's word.

I am not surprised that the Passion of the Christ was not as successful evangelistically as most churches hoped. My own church booked a theater screening, but to my disappointment, very few members took the initiative to bring their non-believing friends. Of those few that invited friends, very few were able to follow up with engaging conversations.

As others have already indicated, there are many evangelistic springboards or tools available to us. I think films like the Passion and Narnia provide an easier transition to talk about spiritual issues. However, a tool is only as good as the hand that wields it. Unfortunately, most Christians today either don't know how or care to share their faith. (In honest reflection, I have recognized that I could have done more to model and train others how to engage non-believers--which I am now seeking to do in my church).

The greater question for me is how can we restore the evangel back into the evangelical? I don't have all the answers. Nevertheless, I would love to see the church becoming more serious about discipleship (i.e., training the whole person to develop godliness and maturity in his/her spiritual, emotional, mental, social/relational, and vocational realms of life). I also would love to see churches make honest assessments of everything they do and have the courage to do away with whatever programs that do not promote sanctification in the body of Christ or advance the gospel of the kingdom.

Am I the only one who's mildly disturbed that we're allowing social scientists to tell us the "success" of the gospel? Furthermore, if you want to hold to the premise that we can indeed observe and measure the working of the Holy Spirit, what--pray tell--would have been successful? I thought it was a powerful movie and an excellent springboard, as others have said. Let's celebrate when God calls a sinner to repentance, and then turn the inspection upon ourselves to see where we're disavowing our own responsibility as ambassadors of the Kingdom.

Good post.

All I know was that in a theater in south Wales in the UK there wasn't a word spoken as the end credits rolled and the impact that film had on the then non-christians around me was undeniable

Wow ... when will "we" the Church realize we don't need Hollywood to spread the Gospel for us? Gee-wiz we look like a bunch of Gomer's running around after each new film. Too bad we missed our opportunity with King Kong. Surely it too had some redemptive value in it. For me it is "Da Vinci NO-Code!"

Rick Warren's group used this film to share the gospel. He had a plan, worked the plan, followed through, set up small groups, discipled those who responded, had materials ready, etc. Wow, what a miracle by Mel Gibson!

The genius is not in Mel but Rick. Most churches have a fuzzy dream that buying a ticket and selling them to members will magically transform itself into evangelism. This is "Magical Christian Thinking" and always fails.

The ministers and elders who understand leadership as planning, follow-through and follow-up are rare birds indeed. When we place a preacher who has only been trained to follow the NATO Plan we will always fail to reach outsiders. (NATO: No Action-Talk Only)

Preaching is about one tenth of the process of attracting people. At least nine tenths comes from the internal web of ministries, lay care-givers, group leaders and good groups, etc.

Read Luke 10 for a full exposition of outreach from a guy who seemed to understand the psychology of outreach. He was also a good teacher and he set up a process for changing the world. My oh my wouldn't it be nice if some preachers actually studied this guys approach.

I remember seeing a trailer for "Passion" and feeling the Lord tug at my heart... I remember anticipating going to see "Passion" because I wanted to be moved deeper in my understanding of what I had read all these years - and no medium does that better than film. Did every single scene in "Passion" fall in line with every jot and tiddle in the Bible? No. Of course not. Just like every other "Biblical" movie ever made. I don't hold this against the film nor against Mel Gibson - it's pretty easy to sit here and point fingers at Mr. Gibson about how he "missed the boat" with his movie - - but, unless I am mistaken, who ELSE in this forum has made a movie recently? Until you actually DO something like this, and then take the never-ending stream of criticism that all we "film experts" have to offer, you have no idea what Mr. Gibson has gone thru in an effort to bring the masses one step closer to comprehending the suffering Christ went through on your behalf.

Okay, it's not "an evangelistic" tool... but I'd take it over some corny little booklet any day.

I thought the Passion was fine for what it was: a narrow view of someone's interpretation of a particular time frame in the life of Christ. That is all it was. It certainly wasn't a full presentation of the Gospel, nor did it carry the authority or power of God's Word. It was art. I have no problem accepting it on those terms. However, I had a major problem with the marketing surrounding the movie and the commercialism regularly exhibited by churches trying to share the Gospel. I found the provocative short film called the McPassion, which you can easily find if you google it, to be a great commentary on this issue.

The New York Times just posted an article on Larry Ross called "Christianity, the Brand." It's not exactly flattering, but it has some interesting comments about Ross' work promoting The Passion.

Ross calls Mel Gibson "one of the high priests of our culture." Ross then goes on to say, "We're forming values, and to be able to do that through entertainment, which is further upstream from politics, is huge."

As for me, I agree with Greg. The Passion worked as one man's artistic response to Jesus.

Of course, it was promoted as an evangelical tool. Most of us now recognize all that passion marketing for what it was--a kind of spin. And we feel duped. We've come to expect secular spin that exagerates the truth for promotional purposes. Christian spin makes us nervous--at least when we are forced to acknowledge it.

The New York Times article poses the dilemma this way: "Why does God need someone to sell him?"

...this movie did aid me in returning to my lost faith.

Hype aside, the church must engage the culture with the Gospel.

These kinds of films put opportunities directly in the lap of believers. I agree that we don't need to fall into all of the junk that the media tries to use to hook us in, but it would be foolish to not address the issues raised by these film opportunities.

I don't see any comment being made about the Jesus film, which has proven to be remarkably powerful as an evangelistic tool. Of course, it utilizes wording straight from scripture for the dialogue. I have heard repeated testimonies from missionary sending agencies how just showing the film has resulted in amazing conversions.

Like Rick Warren's church, however, we must be wise in responding to those conversions and discipling them.

I also am reminded how poor the best of the evangelistic revivals of Billy Graham and the like were at actually bringing converts into the local church -- nothing replaces believers loving and interacting with non-believers and planting, watering and reaping the gospel seed.

Good stuff to think about. My initial thoughts are that if we look to gospel centered movies (or whatever you want to call them) as a great new method of evangelism, they will go the same way all other "great new methods of evangelism" have gone - they will eventually fail. I agree with McLaren, it must be something more - a people living out their faith together in a real world.

To me, "The Passion" was a very well done film that moved me tremendously. However, I am a believer. I don't think Mel Gibson made the film as an evangelical tool. And it's probably not effective that way. The movie doesn't show anyone how Christ can make a difference in his or her individual life. It simply shows the last 24 or so hours of Christ's life before his death on the cross. In that, it was a moving film for the believer.

I think we have to treat all pieces of culture, be they religious or otherwise, like Christ treated the culture of his day, as examples or allegories of the truth we are trying to convey. They are but single arrows in an arsenal that must be used daily by us as we seek to show Christ to the world.

Our daily interaction will do more than any movie possibly could. Something we need to remember when we're dealing with people.

I see two main issues that relate to the impact, or lack thereof, of Mel's movie. For one, by focusing on Jesus death rather than his life, it missed the opportunity of sharing Jesus' most compelling moments. And secondly, it assumed much more knowledge of the Christian message in the general public than actually exists. Someone forgot to tell Mel Gibson that postmodernism has taken hold in much of the West, and as such we live in a decidedly post-Christian culture. Perhaps the movie could re-ignite a "backsliding" Christian who grew up in a Christian milieu, but it seems unlikely to impact someone unfamiliar with the Christian tradition.

Perhaps God is not looking for his church to just come up with creative gimmicks and light shows. Perhaps God wants us to hit our knees and cry out for His Spirit to touch our land. Perhaps he wants us to serve our fellow man that is down and out, not just send him to a movie…

"Movies give us an easy, non-threatening way to continue a conversation and deepen relationships with pre-believers that we've already started.”

An "easy" and "non-threatening" way to share the gospel. Easy and non-threatening, that is, to us.

That's pretty much the roadblock right there, isn't it?

[Perhaps he wants us to serve our fellow man that is down and out, not just send him to a movie…]

Aaron gets it. A movie that challenged us to actually become the hands and feet of Jesus wouldn't sell anyway. Better that we just do it. :)

I think Barna's research reflects two things: There was nothing wrong with the Passion movie-it was great and I think Christians can use that as a reference point for years to come when explaining the gospel. (have you seen the Passion move? Remember when he was on the cross . . . )

However, the church has fallen prey to slick marketing. Like the world, Christian marketers bill every book, movie, teaching series as the gotta-have-it-now latest and set the bar for success so high (it will revolutionize your church, change the world, and win a billion souls to Christ.) When those lofty goals aren't met we're left standing there wondering, "Why didnt't this happen?"

Again, the problem wasn't the movie, but the marketing bandwagon that went with it.

I also think the movie may have had more impact than can be quantified in a survey. There were undoubtedly many souls saved in one-on-one follow-up conversations, without the slick teaching packets, study guides, and books that were produced en-masse.

The lesson here, I think, is that every book doesn't have to be a movement. Every movie isn't a revival. They all help, but the greatest number of souls are added to the Kingdom by the faithful one-on-one conversion that happens around the country.

Churches have to stop doing church-out-of-the-box and affixing themselves to the latest marketing bandwagon.

Be unique, do what God called you to do.

Yeah absolutely, the core of evangelism has to be based on your relationships with people. I havent seen the film but every non-christian I know who saw it thought it was either ridiculous, or asked me why it had all this non-scriptural stuff in it or as was often the case with my Jewish friends, felt somewhat threatened by it. (But my Christian friends all thought it was deeply moving.) In my experience guiding someone to Christ has to be based on genuinely loving them, and listening, and sharing my heart, and engaging the scriptures together. This is hard and takes lots of work and prayer and frustration. Relying just on a movie I think makes the church seem way too inwardly focused and kind of unhealthy. (But Ive definately used movies before, to illustrate certain points -like unsatisfaction with worldy riches- in my discussions, so it could have some evangelistic value.)

Perhaps church leaders should have spoken about the Passion at churches simply because it's a movie about Christ--and how many movies about Christ are we able to see? That was enough reason to see the film. I thought it was a beautiful film. If it didn't work as evangelism, that's too bad, but perhaps the film had another purpose. How about us--the already believing Christians? Perhaps the Passion was for us as much as for anyone. (And what's wrong with that?)

Two hours of indescribable violence is supposed to attract people?

Anyone who could sit through that without becoming violently ill is not someone I would listen to, much less even want to be in the same room with.

I thought of The Passion of the Christ as a work of art. It seems to me people have expressed and/or shared their faith through art for centuries. Personally, I feel the hype surrounding the film was overplayed, but not the expression. Art moves different people in different ways. When we start to use it as a "tool"... is it still art?

I'm a minister of the Word from Ireland living and ministering in the US. I didn't buy into or promote the Passion hype though appreciated the movie. I didn't buy into or promote the Narnia hype though loved the movie. I also don't buy into or promote the "President Bush & GOP will save us" hype. For some reason we seem to think embracing & using the gods of this world (Power, Popularity, Buety, Riches, Knowledge, business models, psycology etc) will bring people to the knowledge and love of the one true God and Jesus Christ -- AND IT'S ALL NONSENSE!

Let's put away the idols for goodness sake! Unbelievers see through and are abandoning these worthless idols. They are looking for Jesus, living and working in you. Let's give them Jesus! Sure...isn't Him their looking for?

Perhaps the purpose of The Passion of the Christ was not for outreach or evangelism, but to return a wayward church back to the central truth of Christianity...the redemptive power of the Cross!

As I viewed the movie, I found myself transformed by the undisguised truth of Jesus' suffering and death for my sins and the sins of the world. As I left the movie theater, I committed to never again forget the price that Christ paid for my salvation and to always remember just how much God the Father loves us - collectively and as individuals.

Perhaps this is the purpose of The Passion...to remind us of the true ugliness and tragic penalty of sin so that we will serve Christ with the love and gratitude that such a sacrifice deserves.

In my heart, I did hope those films would make an impact but our church did not invest. It seems obvious that the original plan was for each person to be given a measure of faith and love to be given to those in their circle of influence so that others WHO KNOW THEM would see their life and follow. We can bank on that plan because it was God sent. Any deviation will leave us dumbfounded at the futility of our efforts. But without the hype and the parade, I recently purchased The Passion for my own viewing, sat alone watching it, repenting and worshipping Christ for what he gave me, undeserved. So I don't discount its impact in my own life. Maybe its best use is as a personal and private tool.

It seems quite possible that these films are creating more harm than they are good. Now movies are being produced so that they can be marketed to American Christians because Hollywood knows Christians will show up to any film that doesn't resemble the Left Behind movies? When does it end?

What if Christianity is on it's way to becoming nothing more than the next big blockbuster?

When individual followers of Christ do not take personal responsibility for talking about him with their friends, co-workers, neighbors, family, then the best evangelical tools in history are nothing more than clutter on a workbench. My biggest concern about "invitational evangelism" is that it becomes an easy out for people to sit back and not share their own personal faith with people. Instead of introducing people to Jesus, we simply invite them to church; and even if those people become "converted" to church, it may be a lifetime before they consciously decide to follow Jesus and accept his invitation to discipleship.