DISCLAIMER : :
All opinions expressed here and or in other gists are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the church as individuals or the church as an organization or institution.
Specific Focus: The Depiction of Christ’s Blood in the Easter Pageant
What follows is my understanding of the discussion as you conveyed it to me. Please forgive any details I may have misunderstood, omitted, or recalled incorrectly.
A secondary discussion occurred later, but for the sake of clarity, this account is limited strictly to the question of whether—and to what extent—the blood of Jesus should be portrayed during the crucifixion scene.
The discussion took place during a meeting of the Easter Pageant leadership—effectively the department heads of the production. Those present included the producer, director, stage manager, sound and lighting leadership, and other key leaders. A substantial number of individuals with authority and responsibility for the pageant were gathered in the meeting room.
The central issue was whether the crucifixion scene should include visible blood.
- Pastor and paid employee of the church.
- Appeared emotionally and spiritually disengaged.
- Did not meaningfully intervene, guide, or contribute to the discussion.
- Offered no pastoral counsel, scriptural insight, or spiritual direction despite the sensitivity and theological weight of the issue.
- Aside from brief glances exchanged with the production leader and a superficial prayer at the beginning or end, he effectively deferred the matter with an attitude of “it’s fine—let’s go with whatever.”
- Provided no clarity, leadership, or resolution.
-
Not a pastor; paid employee of the church.
-
Master musician, head of the orchestra, and producer of the Easter Pageant.
-
Ultimately responsible for the success of the production.
-
Expressed comfort with portraying the crucifixion without blood.
-
In response to your citation of Hebrews 9:22 (“there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood”), he replied:
“The actor is not Jesus. This is just a play.”
-
It is unclear what he intended by this statement. It raises the question of whether he believed you were confusing symbolic portrayal with literal reenactment.
-
Notably, a senior pastor has recently stated from the pulpit that the belief that Christ is repeatedly re-sacrificed aligns with Catholic doctrine—specifically the Mass—where Christ is symbolically “called down” and re-offered. This belief is widely understood by Protestants to be theologically incorrect and even blasphemous, given Scripture’s clear teaching that Christ was sacrificed once for all.
- Not a pastor; paid employee of the church.
- Stage Manager.
- Expressed strong opposition to any depiction of blood.
- Either she or another participant raised concern by asking, “What about the special needs kids?”
- Not a pastor; not a paid employee of the church.
- Assistant Director; spouse of the scriptwriter.
- Supported including a small amount of blood.
- Referenced well-known historical portrayals of the crucifixion that show minimal blood as justification.
-
Not a pastor; not a paid employee of the church.
-
Forty-year member of the church and well known and respected by almost everyone in the room.
-
Director of the Easter Pageant.
-
Expressed a strong conviction that the crucifixion should be portrayed in a biblically accurate manner.
-
Quoted Hebrews 9:22 in support of your position:
“There is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.”
-
The production leader responded with the statement noted above.
-
Became emotional and openly questioned whether it was possible, in good conscience, to continue directing an Easter Pageant that did not portray the crucifixion in a biblically faithful way.
Every expressed opinion—whether for more blood, less blood, or none at all—was sincere, genuine, and worthy of respect. Each participant brought real concerns to the table.
The exception is the pastoral oversight leader—not because of his personal beliefs, but because he failed to articulate any position or provide leadership at all. In a room full of ministry leaders wrestling with a sensitive and controversial theological issue, the pastor responsible for that ministry did not step forward to offer experiential, historical, spiritual, or scriptural guidance.
Past difficulties with prior Easter Pageants and the resulting criticism do not excuse abdication of responsibility now—especially when leadership is needed most. If the pastoral oversight leader is unable to lead due to illness or other factors, then responsibility should fall to another pastor within the church. It is not the responsibility of the congregation or volunteer leadership to demand this; church leadership should possess the humility and self-awareness to recognize the gap themselves.
As the pastor and paid employee responsible for this ministry, what occurred—and what failed to occur—in that room is ultimately his responsibility to acknowledge and address moving forward.
Based on the facts as you presented them, every argument made in favor of minimizing or eliminating the portrayal of blood appeared to be rooted in a worldly or pragmatic perspective. Not a single argument against portraying blood was grounded explicitly in Scripture.
I know from experience that when I reason from any foundation other than Scripture, I eventually go astray. While it is true that Scripture can be misused to justify personal preferences, that does not negate the obligation to begin with Scripture—especially in matters of doctrinal significance.
This is a Bible-believing church. This is an Easter Pageant. We are professing Christian believers. In such a context, Scripture should be the primary lens through which disputed matters are examined—not to assign blame, but to pursue truth faithfully and humbly. (Proverbs 27:17)
Now to move from diagnosis to resolution.
What follows is what should be appended—not to reopen the debate, but to rightly frame it, re-center authority, and move the group forward in a way that is biblical, respectful, and decisive.
The purpose of this appendix is not to relitigate preferences, emotions, or production concerns, but to provide a clear, biblical, and leadership-driven framework for resolving the question of how the crucifixion is portrayed—specifically regarding the depiction of Christ’s blood—so the Easter Pageant may proceed in unity, clarity, and integrity.
The question before us is not artistic, logistical, or emotional at its core. It is theological.
Therefore, the authority for resolving it must be Scripture, applied through pastoral leadership, not majority opinion, production practicality, or personal comfort levels.
This matter should be formally brought under the responsibility of church elders or pastors who are biblically tasked with teaching, guarding doctrine, and shepherding consciences (Hebrews 13:17). Creative leadership should not be left to shoulder theological decisions that rightly belong to spiritual leadership.
Any position advocating for less blood, no blood, or symbolic blood should be supported by explicit scriptural reasoning, not:
- Audience sensitivity alone
- Emotional discomfort
- Fear of criticism
- Historical precedent outside Scripture
- Cultural norms or modern sensibilities
Likewise, the case for a visible portrayal of blood should be evaluated against Scripture with equal seriousness.
If Scripture is sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16), then it must also be sufficient to guide how we portray the central act of redemption.
It should be clearly stated and agreed upon that:
- The pageant is representational, not sacramental.
- No one believes the actor is Jesus.
- No one believes Christ is being re-sacrificed.
However, representation does not excuse theological distortion. Scripture consistently affirms that Christ’s suffering and bloodshed were visible, violent, and essential to redemption (Isaiah 53; Hebrews 9–10; 1 Peter 2:24).
The question, therefore, is not whether we represent Christ symbolically—but whether our symbols faithfully communicate biblical truth or obscure it.
Concerns about children, special-needs individuals, or sensitive viewers are real and should be handled with care—but care must not become avoidance of truth.
A mature solution may include:
- Advance communication to parents
- Optional seating or viewing accommodations
- Thoughtful staging that conveys blood realistically without gratuitous sensationalism
What must be avoided is allowing the most sensitive edge case to redefine the theological center of the gospel presentation.
At minimum, leadership should agree on the following biblical non-negotiables:
- Christ’s blood was shed intentionally, not incidentally
- The shedding of blood was necessary for the forgiveness of sins
- The crucifixion was not clean, sanitized, or abstract
- The resurrection only makes sense in light of the cost of the cross
If these truths are affirmed doctrinally, then the portrayal must not contradict them visually.
Finally, this issue should be resolved with clarity, not ambiguity.
Once Scripture is examined and a decision is reached by those biblically responsible to lead, that decision should be:
- Clearly articulated
- Spiritually justified
- Confidently owned by leadership
This will free the creative team to move forward without lingering tension, uncertainty, or conscience conflict.
The goal is not to “win” an argument, push an agenda, or shame differing convictions.
The goal is unity under truth.
A biblically faithful Easter Pageant should neither sensationalize the cross nor sanitize it—but should present it with reverence, honesty, and courage, trusting that God’s truth, when faithfully portrayed, does not harm His people but sanctifies them.