It has been nearly three months since the movie opened in America and we still do not see the widespread "revival" that was promised by the evangelical Church as the basis for its promotion of the film. But we are in the end times. It has already been prophesied in the Bible that the world would grow worse and worse as the end draws near. Can we expect widespread revival?

mail@tonyabetz.org

Paul Harvey said, "Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text..."

I received this exact email about a week before the movie opened. I read it with pleasure, believing that Harvey was right. I also read, and was told directly, similar accounts. Tonya saw the movie. She thought it was going to be good, "faithful to the Gospel text," as Harvey said. Too bad it wasn't.

We've talked to several people who have seen the movie. Those who are fully endorsing it are Catholics and Christians. Very few people care that the entire plot followed the Catholic 14 Stations of the Cross. The Catholics are happy, of course, and most Christians have been blinded. It is interesting to contemplate what would have happened if someone other than a Catholic had made this movie. What if this movie had been made by a Mormon? What if this Mormon director had made a movie about the crucifixion (after all, Mormons believe that Jesus died on a cross for our sins)? What if this Mormon director loosely used the gospel accounts and then added in text from the Book of Mormon. After all, this director has the right to tell the story according to his beliefs and use artistic license to get his theology across, right? And what if this Mormon director told the world that this movie was directed by the Holy Spirit?

Would we still have said, "Oh, yes, Mr. Mormon director, please come to our church and tell us all about your wonderful movie. We are anxious to support you. After all, you're our Christian brother. It's okay that you believe that Jesus isn't really God, but merely a created being and the brother of Satan. It's okay that you believe God was originally a man who attained godhood and that someday we will be gods, too. That's okay. As long as you say you believe that Jesus died on a cross, we're brothers."

hmm... Nothing against Mel Gibson as a person, but I am leery of supporting a movie that has strengthened the Catholic church and even has caused some in the Christian church to be more sympathetic to Mary and Mariolatry. But the saddest thing is that I have had many conversations with non-believers who say that this movie confused them. Some have said that this depiction of Jesus was so unbelievable and over the top that it was just silly. One person said it looked like this Jesus guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Another person said that Jesus was a weakling, not as strong as Satan who was always badgering Him. By and large, the unbelievers aren't buying it. Yet, if it was directed by the Holy Spirit, then the unbelievers would be getting saved, for the job of the Holy Spirit is to convict the world of sin and lead us into all truth. This movie does neither. If it is not of the Holy Spirit, then it is of the flesh. Jesus says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life" John 6:63.

There's a theory in social psychology called cognitive dissonance. I believe many Christians are at that point. They bought into the hype, they spent the money on tickets, they told everyone they knew that this was it, and now...the mind will justify the actions. The mind will not let you see the problems with the movie. That causes dissonance. The mind is always trying to rid itself of dissonance. If the mind (and the emotions) said that this was the best thing to hit the planet since Jesus Himself and you were completely agreed that you were going to support it, the mind will do whatever it takes to maintain that position. It will forget the bad theology in the movie, it will ignore the Catholicism, it will say that any questions you may have are not worth addressing. The mind will defend the actions it spurred. What can overcome the mind? Only God Himself. Our flesh doesn't want to be wrong. Our flesh doesn't want to admit that it made a mistake.

I have been accused now of not being saved and even being demon possessed! It makes me wonder. I thought this movie was supposed to spark revival.

I really wanted this movie to be good. I had high hopes. It seems that the Church was so desperate to have a movie do the evangelism that it bought into the hype. Unfortunately, this movie now represents the Church. The world watches this movie and thinks that everything in the movie is what Christians believe. After all, nearly the entire Christian Church has said that this movie is the Gospel truth and follows scripture exactly. What are we doing? Why are we aligning ourselves with a cult? Welcome to the end times.

If you have any questions or concerns, please talk with us.

In Christ,
Tonya and Carol

mail@tonyabetz.org

With that said, we want to clarify some points we made in our review of the movie. First, we did not say that NO unbelievers would be touched by this film. We know that some may come to a place of questioning and want to know more about this Jesus. This is precisely why we put together a CD -- to explain more about why Jesus died for us and to offer free Bibles to anyone who wants to know more. Second, we did not say that every scene in the movie was wrong or that believers could not be touched by this film. Our concern was that most of the believers who see the movie would view it as completely accurate and scriptural.

IF Mel Gibson had said up front that this was just a movie, his work of art loosely based on the gospel accounts, a fictionalized version of the Bible, then we probably wouldn't have written a review at all. The problem is that Gibson said that this movie was "directed by the Holy Ghost" and the Church, by and large, is now viewing this movie without much discernment. Our concern is that if it is declared to be "from God, about God" it had better be 100% accurate.

We do pray that those who see the movie would come to know the truth. We pray that unbelievers who choose to see the movie would ask questions and come to salvation. We pray that believers would be there to help others along.

If you have any questions or concerns, please talk with us.

In Christ,
Tonya and Carol

mail@tonyabetz.org

We need to begin by examining the foundation of the movie. Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic, which means he believes only in papal documents released prior to 1965. The Second Vatican Council states, among other things, that Rome recognizes there may be Christians outside the Catholic church. Gibson rejects that notion. Last year, Gibson said in an interview that although his wife is "a better person" than himself, she would not be in heaven because she is not Catholic. In the more recent Diane Sawyer interview, however, Gibson said that "everyone can go to heaven, but it's just easier for me," presumably because he is traditionalist Catholic. Either view is not Biblical and the fact that Gibson has apparently flip-flopped in his views is of concern.

Further, Gibson said in the Sawyer interview that he is not anti-Semitic because, essentially, the pope said such a stance is wrong. Gibson did not say that he is not anti-Semitic because God says it's wrong or because his conscience tells him it's wrong, but because the pope says it's wrong. Gibson, however, does not completely adhere to any pope's teachings since Pope Pius XII. Up until that point, Rome blamed the Jews for Christ's death, speaking of Jews as "abhorrent to the will of God." Gibson follows the Council of Trent, which, in the sixteenth century, called for the burning at the stake any "heretics" who did not appease the Catholic church; thus, the thousands of Reformers killed in the name of papal Rome. The Church has embraced Gibson as a "brother in the faith," yet the apostle John would warn us not to have fellowship with those outside the one true faith (2 John 1:9-11).

Gibson is a committed traditionalist Catholic, going to Latin mass every day while filming in Italy. His "salvation" is based on works, not on faith. His "salvation" is based on the traditions of man, not on the truth of God. The Catholic sacrament is not the same as the Lord's Supper instituted in the Bible. Catholics believe that as they take the elements they are crucifying Christ again for themselves and believe that those elements are the actual body and blood of Christ. Catholicism is known for its idolatry, the worship of Mary, and the saints.

In addition to Gibson's own traditionalist Catholic religious views, he based the movie on the visions and dreams of a nineteenth century Catholic mystic. Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions of the events leading up to and including the crucifixion of Christ were written in a book that Gibson stumbled across several years ago in a used bookstore. He was fascinated by Emmerich's visions, so much so that he continues to carry that book, Dolorous Passion of Our Lord, with him. He is so enamored of Emmerich that he also carries a piece of cloth said to be from Emmerich's habit. Gibson's reasoning is that he can be in touch with Emmerich through this cloth.

Emmerich apparently had a special relationship with God, one in which God told her secrets about the actual events of His suffering and crucifixion. In other words, you and I cannot possibly know the true Gospel by simply reading the four Gospel accounts found in the Bible. We must have special revelation knowledge, just as Emmerich did. Gibson's mission was to tell the world what really happened on that tragic day 2000 years ago. In an interview published last summer, Gibson stated of his movie, "It's like travelling back in time and watching the events unfold exactly as they occurred." Gibson's "exact" version, he believes, is the truth because it is based on Emmerich's visions. This is no different than what the Word of Faith teachers say today. We are told that we cannot truly know God unless He speaks to us and reveals to us things that are not in His written word. Gibson's dependence on Emmerich is no different. We are told, not so subtly, that this movie -- because it reveals "truths" not found in the written word -- is actually the "exact" rendering of the Gospel account. In other words, this movie supercedes the Bible. That is no different than what the Faith Movement teaches and that is no different than what Catholicism has taught for 1500 years. Any cursory study of papal Rome will reveal the ugly fact that Catholicism has consistently, and in no uncertain terms, put itself above God and His written word. Papal bulls have emphatically stated that the pope cannot, and has never, spoken one false word and that the pope is the final authority in all matters. That is Gibson's faith.

So much for the foundation of the movie. What of the movie itself? We had been told that the movie was not "Catholic" and that it was Biblically accurate. Tonya went in to the movie hoping that that was true. She was going into the movie thinking that it was going to be good. The bad news is, there are so many unbiblical scenes in the movie that it would be impossible to explain them all here, but we will point out the most obvious problems.

Tonya knew going in that she had been told two different things: first she was told that it was Catholic and then she was told that it wasn't, so she wasn't sure how accurate it would be. She was asking God for wisdom and discernment. At the same time, she wanted to allow God to move her as He willed. She is in the minority, it seems. We have found very few people who questioned anything in the movie. Almost everyone who has seen the movie was swept away by the intensity and power of the art and cannot fathom why anyone who sees the movie would not be also. It was a powerful movie and it did stir up emotion, yet the power of the Holy Spirit is greater. The red flags went up throughout the first half of the movie so that by the time Tonya got to the second half she wasn't buying into the emotional elicitation.

In the movie, we see Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, not being ministered to by an angel of God, but being buffeted by the enemy. Where is that in Scripture? The word tells us that Jesus was praying to the Father after which time an angel came to Him. Gibson was so intent on showing the workings of Satan that he puts Satan in the Garden instead. Then we see Jesus standing by in the Garden while a brawl ensues between His disciples and the Roman soldiers. After some time, Jesus finally tells Peter to stop. Compare this with Matthew 26:50-55.

In the movie, as the Roman soldiers are taking Jesus to the high priest, He is beaten up on the way and falls off a bridge, only to be face to face with Judas. This is not in the Bible. In fact, in the word of God, Jesus is not struck at all until He is in the court of the high priest. Again, Gibson is trying to stir up emotion and highlight the physical suffering of Christ, so much so that he lies about what really happened.

Judas then feels remorse for what he has done and then is met by some "demon" children who torment him. He then goes and hangs himself. The implication here is that Judas was not responsible for his own death; rather, "the devil made him do it." While we know that Satan is behind all evil acts, this scene would suggest that Judas' decision to kill himself was not a decision of his own conscience, but, rather, "he went mad." Nowhere in the Biblical account are there children tormenting anyone.

Indeed, the "evil presence" throughout the movie is quite distracting, with the message being one of an absence of culpability on the part of humans. Gibson constantly drives home the idea that no one is really responsible for his actions because behind every decision lurks this evil presence. Although we are briefly told that Jesus chose to die, the overwhelming visual message of the movie is that Satan and his demons are in control at all times, up until the very end. We believe that Satan does have power over this world system, but that does not excuse man from the decisions he makes.

The evil characters throughout the movie give this film the distinct flavor of Hollywood horror. Indeed, one is left at the end of this movie wondering if they just saw a Biblical account of the Gospel or a mystical, Stephen King version of the last twelve hours of Jesus' life. In Gibson's account, the evil one is given far too much glory. The focus is on the evil of Satan rather than the goodness of Jesus. Most movie-goers, however, will only remember the last half of the movie and will balk at us for bringing up all of the satanic characters. Yet, if this movie is supposed to be an exact telling of the truth, then it had better be the truth. And what is the message that Gibson is trying to send?

It is understood that Gibson wanted to show that evil comes in many shapes and forms and that evil is everywhere. Yet, in his portrayal of evil, it would seem that man has no choice. In Gibson's estimation, man is a pawn of evil, with no moral conscience of his own. This is dangerous territory. Granted, at the end we see Satan sitting in a pit (presumably some kind of Hell), as if to say that since Christ's sacrifice, man is free from the influence of evil. But that isn't Biblical either. It seems that Gibson isn't quite sure what he believes.

Remember, Gibson says this movie is like travelling back in time and seeing the events exactly as they happened. If that is so, then Gibson needs to be true to the Biblical accounts, not his own opinion. He has included several scenes that are nowhere to be found in the Bible, but are instead the visions of Emmerich. This is the crux of the matter: If Gibson is so exacting, and his basis is more that of Emmerich than that of God, we need to be very careful that we don't begin to believe Gibson's (Emmerich's) account. In fact, if Gibson was so stuck on getting everything right, he would have had the Roman soldiers speaking in Greek, not Latin. (The use of Latin by Romans was rare in Jesus' time. Only the highest officials - the elite - would have spoken Latin. It wasn't until at least a century later that Latin became more used among the Romans.) And Peter would not have "damned" someone. Rather, he swore an oath that he did not know Jesus. There's a difference.

In the movie, when Jesus is on the cross, not only is the veil torn in two, but the entire temple is rent in two. In the Bible there is no mention that the entire temple is split. Gibson assumes that because there was an earthquake, the temple splits, causing the veil to tear. This misses the point entirely. The veil being torn in two stems from Exodus (see 21:31-34) and Hebrews. In Exodus, we learn that the tabernacle was to have a holy place and a most holy place, separated by a veil. Only the high priest was allowed into the most holy place where the mercy seat was located. When Jesus was on the cross taking on the sins of the world, God showed us that Jesus' sacrifice was making it possible for us to enter the most holy place. By tearing the veil in two, God showed us symbolically that Jesus made a way for us to come to the mercy seat. Jesus was now our high priest. In Hebrews, we read that the veil, symbolically, was Jesus' flesh (10:20). In Old Testament times, if one was to make a covenant with someone, the two would slaughter a first born animal and separate it into halves. The halves would lay side by side on the ground and each of the two men would walk between the two pieces, signifying their covenant. Because Jesus' flesh is represented by the veil, we can see that the torn veil represents the offer of covenant. So, for Gibson to have the entire temple split in two, hence causing the veil to be torn, entirely misses the beauty of Scripture. Gibson clearly does not understand the miracle of the torn veil and it is a shame that Christians will miss it's significance, too.

Among other strange scenes is one in which Satan is sitting in Hell or some kind of pit, yet the Bible makes it clear that Satan has never been in Hell or a pit. He will be thrown into the pit when Jesus comes back to set up His kingdom on earth. A thousand years later, Satan will be loosed from the pit, but will soon thereafter be thrown into Hell forever (Revelation 20:1-3; 7-10). Again, Gibson's rendering would have us believe that the influence of evil has been defeated, yet the apostle Paul clearly states that Satan is the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2). Peter states that Satan roams around as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). Yet the New Testament is also clear that each person is responsible for his own behavior. We choose whether or not to give in to the enemy.

One of the things to look for in a Catholic movie is the glorification of Mary. Mary is in nearly every scene and there is one in particular that must be pointed out. Jesus is being held underground, and we see Mary on the ground above. There is a mystical connection between Mary and Jesus as Mary puts her ear to the ground, sensing that Jesus is right under her. Then we see Jesus look up, as if looking to His mother for comfort. Nowhere in the Gospel accounts does Jesus look to Mary for comfort. Over and over again in the Bible, we are told that Jesus looked to the Father in heaven for all things. Indeed, Jesus says that His "blood relatives" are not his mother and brothers; rather, his mother and brothers and sisters are only those who do the will of the Father (Matthew 12:46-50).

Although Gibson says he is Catholic, one may wonder whether he has also adopted a Gnostic religion such as Jehovah's Witnesses. Gibson has the Spirit leaving Jesus on the Via Dolorosa, signified by the dove hovering above Jesus. You may recall that the dove landed on Jesus when John baptized Him (Matthew 3:16; John 1:32) and here Gibson has the dove separated from Jesus. The imagery here certainly implies that the Holy Spirit is taken from Jesus. After Jesus' death on the cross, He is placed in the tomb where He spends an undetermined amount of time. Watching this movie, and having no previous knowledge, one is led to believe that Jesus was placed in the tomb only momentarily, not for three days. Gibson then seems to "put a body on" a resurrected spirit so he can show that Jesus has indeed risen. We then see Jesus leave the tomb as, presumably, a naked man because that is the way the image is shot. It would appear that Gibson is showing that Jesus did not rise as the God-Man, but rose only as spirit. Yet he wanted to show that Jesus left the tomb, so he put a body on the spirit. But then we are left with the distinct impression that poor Mary Magdalene will soon see Jesus as a naked man that she at first mistakes as a gardener (Mark 16:9; John 20:14-15)!

And what of the actual scourging of Christ? We see in the movie that Jesus is scourged front and back. When we get to the cross, we see that Jesus looks like He's been through a meat grinder while the two thieves who flank Him have not a scratch on them. Why would Gibson so distort Jesus' suffering? Why weren't the thieves beat to a pulp? Why were the thieves nailed to their crosses in simple fashion with arms hanging haphazardly while Jesus had to be stretched into place where nail holes had already been bored in the cross? In Sawyer's interview, Gibson said his intent was to make the movie so violent that it pushed people over the edge. He admitted that he exaggerated the Biblical account for the sake of eliciting deep emotions. That he did. More than one moviegoer has said that after the initial scourging of Jesus with the reed by Pilate's soldiers and then the further scourging with the cat-of-ninetails, they wanted it to stop, but it kept going. Many attribute this feeling to a deep and new understanding of what Jesus suffered, yet this reviewer had a different take on it. That feeling of "stop" was not an emotional gut-wrenching plea, it was the Holy Spirit revealing the truth. Gibson's account has Jesus suffering another scourging on His front side, but that is not Biblical; thus, the "stop" of the Spirit. The Bible says that Jesus was scourged by Pilate and then his soldiers mocked Him with a crown of thorns and took Him to Golgotha. End of story. Yet the movie shows that Pilate's soldiers scourged Jesus with the reed and then scourged Him again with a cat-of-ninetails, and then continued to mock Him and beat Him.

There is something wrong with a Church that must be emotionally supercharged and dragged "over the edge" in order to have a deep and profound understanding of Jesus' suffering. Is it not enough that God Himself came to earth as a baby? Is it not enough that the holy God of the universe had to live among sinful wretches? Is it not enough to know that He came to die for us? Is it not enough to believe that He suffered the pain and shame of a Roman cross? One must ask why Gibson felt it necessary to exaggerate the truth in order to stir up an emotional faith among professing Christians.

Roman crucifixion was gruesome. The offender would be whipped. He would be nailed to a cross and lifted so that asphyxiation would take place. Jesus suffered the additional shame of being mocked as the self-proclaimed King of the Jews. Pilate scourged Jesus and then sent Him off to be crucified. There were no special instructions to beat Jesus to a pulp. He would have received the usual lashes, just as the two thieves. If we look at the Biblical account we see the following: After Jesus was taken from the Garden, He was led to the court of Caiaphas, the high priest, where He was spat upon, hit with the fist, and slapped with the open palm (Matthew 26:67; Mark and Luke have Jesus also blindfolded at this point). In the morning, the chief priests and elders bound Jesus and brought Him to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor (Matthew 27:2). Pilate then scourged Jesus, which would have been the stripes on the back. He then sent Jesus off to be crucified (Matthew 27:26). (Luke has Jesus being sent to Herod and then back to Pilate. Herod did nothing more than mock Jesus.) The Roman soldiers took Jesus away, put a purple robe on him, put a crown of thorns on His head, hit Him in the head (driving the thorns in), then put His old clothes back on and led Him to the place of crucifixion (Matthew 27:27-31). John 19:1-5 says that Pilate scourged Jesus then presented Him to the people wearing the crown of thorns and purple robe. On the way to the crucifixion, Matthew, Mark, and Luke say that a man named Simon bore the cross after Jesus had been carrying it. Luke also at this time has Jesus speaking to some women, suggesting that He was able to talk at least at some length.

Certainly, Jesus suffered greatly. He was scourged on the back, had a crown of thorns jammed into his head, was beaten on the head with a stick, was hit and slapped, and was mocked. But Gibson's film goes way further than that. Jesus is whipped on the back and then turned over and whipped some more with a cat-of-ninetails. Yet the Bible makes it clear that He would be scourged only on the back (Isaiah 50:6). By grossly exaggerating the events, Gibson is saying that our simple faith is not enough. One almost feels guilty now for not giving in to the Hollywood version of the cross.

Think for a moment about those heroes of the faith who have come before us. Think about the Old Testament saints whose faith was accounted unto them as righteousness but who never in their lifetime knew anything about a cross. When Jesus died on the cross, these saints were set free. When Jesus rose from the dead, the spirits/souls of these saints could rise, too. Yet these saints never saw the events of the cross. Think of those New Testament saints who were not there when Jesus was crucified. How could they possibly know that Jesus was so grotesquely tortured? There was no movie to show them how badly Jesus suffered, so how could they possibly really understand their faith? No, what these saints understood was Jewish law and the standard procedure for Roman crucifixion. Yet these saints were disciples of Christ because He came from heaven to die for them, to take their sins. Think to the future when Jesus returns to earth. He will present Himself to Israel and they will see Him whom they pierced (Zechariah 12:10). Yet, there is no mention of His entire body being scarred. Yes, He suffered; we must never forget that. But to think that we need to believe that His entire body was scourged far beyond recognition is to say that His death on the cross wasn't quite enough to spur us to the right kind of faith.

And what of Peter who would later suffer his own crucifixion? Peter said that he was not worthy to die as Jesus did, so he had them hang him upside down. If Jesus had been so brutalized as Gibson has portrayed, then Peter would have no worries about dying as Jesus did, for Peter would have only suffered the "normal" amount, just like the two thieves. No, Peter knew that he would be scourged just as Jesus was and then hung on a cross. To Peter, the difference would come in hanging upside down.

I don't know about you, but I believe the simple sacrifice is enough for us to give our lives to Jesus. The gross exaggeration of the events actually takes away from faith. How much easier it is to have sympathy for someone who has undergone severe brutality, yet Jesus said it best, of course: "Blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe" (John 20:29). Thomas needed to see with his own eyes, yet Jesus rebuked him. Thomas wanted to physically see and touch the nail prints in His hands and touch the wound in His side. Without this physical proof, Thomas would not believe that Jesus actually suffered the cross and rose again. Today, we seem to be saying that simply believing that Jesus suffered the cross is not enough; to have real faith, we must believe Jesus suffered far more than the Gospel accounts indicate. Why is it that the Church today needs to see Hollywood's version of the truth? Are we of so little faith? Indeed, we are. Perhaps this movie, if nothing else, will stir us to repentance for being so dependent on the entertainment industry.

Gibson, in his effort to make a gory movie, misses the main spiritual and doctrinal issues. He literally lies to us when he includes scenes not revealed by God in His word and he minimizes the truth when he uses silly dialogue not found in the Bible. One can argue that Gibson is entitled to take artistic license. That may be true when he's directing other movies, but not when he's directing the very truth of God. Who are we to take liberty with God's word? Is not the Bible powerful enough on its own? Are we saying that in order for the Bible to speak to us it must be embellished? We're back to the Word of Faith Movement.

Is this movie an evangelistic tool? Yes and no. No, because if you don't already have an extensive understanding of the Gospel account, you will be completely lost. Anyone who is not already a believer well versed in the Bible will come away with a very wrong view of the events that took place. Having said that, we know that because of the magnitude of the film, some non-Christians will see it. We must be prepared to have answers. We must be able to right all the wrongs in the movie. We must be able to explain to the typical non-Christian that what they have just seen is only one person's opinion of what happened. Then we come back to that age-old argument from the unbeliever: "Well, then, how can I believe the Bible if Christians can't even understand it? This just proves that the Bible can be interpreted many different ways." As always, we need to be prepared to give an account of the truth.

If you haven't already read the Gospel accounts and thoroughly understand them, this movie will not help you to understand the truth. An unbeliever will assume that Satan, not an angel, visited Jesus in the Garden; that Pilate's wife gave towels to Mary (taken straight from Emmerich's book); that Pilate's wife ran the show and Pilate was a weak leader; that Judas Iscariot was not responsible for his actions; that Jesus was beaten more than any other man on the way to a crucifixion; that the Roman soldiers were playing Yahtzee while Jesus hung on the cross; that the temple was split in two rather than just the veil; that Mary Magdalene was the woman who was caught in adultery, etc....

What's worse is that the exaggeration of physical suffering may seem to the unbeliever so far-fetched as to be unbelievable. The physical suffering in this movie seems such a caricature of the truth. Would an unbeliever really buy into this notion that Jesus went through that much torture? Indeed, we have already heard of those who found it so far-fetched as to be unbelievable. Gibson's production company pitched this movie to the evangelical community to stir up an interest. One of the company's employees said the movie was pitched in typical marketing fashion; it was about money, but the evangelical community ran with it. It was not Gibson's company that touted the movie as an evangelistic tool; that was the doing of the Church.