Next up in this series is one of our “friends across the pond,” Justin Brierley, with his weekly radio show/ podcast Unbelievable?. Unbelievable? Airs every Saturday in the U.K. and is then released as a podcast. Each week, Brierly brings together a Christian and a skeptic to have a dialogue on matters of faith. Sometimes the dialogue is among Christians discussing an area of disagreement in theology. What really stands out in these discussion is the level of civility that is (usually) maintained throughout the conversation. While Brierley makes no secret about where he stands, he is consistently recognized by listeners and guests as a very even-handed moderator of the discussions.
Byblacksheep (BBS from here out) said,
“…if we have morals from a perfect God (we know what is good because god said so) we would expect perfect morals from the beginning.”
As a Christian, I would affirm that we have morals from a perfect God. As I argued in part uno, God himself is the ground of goodness. However, I would not say “we know that is good because God said so.” What I mean here is that I know of no Christian theologian who would say God has revealed his moral will exhaustively. He has revealed some things, and from those we can infer other things. We obviously can be mistaken about those inferences, but we do not claim they have the same weight of authority as clear revelation. For example, Exodus 20:15 says, “Do not steal.” We can infer from this that there is such a thing as private property of some kind, and that certain rights follow from this. As such while I think what God has revealed of his moral will is perfect, it is not entirely spelled out, which brings me to the second half of the statement above. We would expect this IF we were claiming that the purpose of divine revelation is to give us an exhaustive book or rules by which we must live, and anything that was happening that was wrong was to be called out and condemned. However, that is not the purpose of Scripture. Its overarching narrative is where we came from, what our problem is, what the solution is, and how it will all be resolved.
BBS goes on to say,
“But our knowledge and our understanding grows…And because of that you would expect the moral codes of earlier civilizations would be just totally wrong and gradually change and be refined over time, which is what we see, globally we have moved in a direction that increases human dignity for all people. Can I definitively say we’ve moved in a direction that is “better?” No I can’t, I will leave that to the philosophers, but what i can do however is look back at the holocaust and say “they got it wrong” I can look back at slavery in the U.S., and slavery across the globe and say “they got it wrong.”
I can agree with BBS that “they got it wrong” but I do so from a worldview that can make sense of that claim. If all we are is molecules in motion, all we can mean when we say “they got it wrong” is that the “molecules in me feel icky about that.” To say they were wrong is to say that they had an obligation to not do that. That implies authority of some kind. Where does that come from? I would argue that the best explanation is a transcendent source in whose image we are made, which is why there is such widespread agreement on big issues like this such that large groups only achieve things like the holocaust by armed force. We have an intuitive sense that such things are wrong. We are also quite capable of ignoring that intuition and/or rationalizing violating it.
BBS also says,
“…consensus really isn’t how we decide what is moral or not moral. Sure it is how we collectively agree what codes, rules, and norms we are going to follow, but that isn’t necessarily WHY we follow them.”
Again, I would agree. In fact, the why is yet another question. Many people follow moral laws against murder and adultery for no reason other than fear of consequences. While that may make their behavior seem moral on the surface, Jesus doubled down on the commandments when he said,
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. (Matthew 5:21)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (verses 27-28)
I will end here for the sake of brevity. Keep an eye out for part drei coming up. (Yes I am using a different language for each sequel number just to be annoying.)
Glenn R. Paauw is a graduate of Calvin College and Calvin Seminary, where he studied Theology and Philosophy. He is the vice president, global Bible engagement, at Biblica and a senior fellow at the Institute for Bible Reading.
Paauw was prompted to write Saving the Bible From Ourselves by research that showed while the average American household has four Bibles (and the average Christian home has ten) there is an increasing Biblical illiteracy. We have lots of Bibles, but no one seems to know what its message is. The cause of this seems to be a tendency toward isolated people reading
isolated verses. In this book, Paauw advocates a return to reading large passages in community.
The book is organized into 14 chapters, really seven couplets, in which Paauw describes an aspect of the problem, followed by a proposed solution. In Chapters 1 and 2, we see the contrast between the “Complicated Bible” and the “Elegant Bible.” By complicated here, Paauw is referring to the manner in which the text on the page is cluttered and chopped with chapter and verse numbers, which have only been in use for the last 500 years, as well as chapter headings, cross references, and notes. An elegant Bible would simply have the text laid out to be read in a more natural reading. (I can tell you that for me, reading a Bible with all those notes and references is like a hound dog with ADD trying to heard squirrels.)
In chapters 3 and 4, Paauw addresses one of my pet peeves when he compares the Snacking Bible with the Feasting Bible. When we isolate verses, we tend to see them as bearing meaning in isolation. As a result, there is a whole cottage industry of putting verses on coffee cups and cross-stitched pillows, etc. There you can see verses like Jeremiah 29:11, “‘ For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’” Nice, right? So if verses are stand-alone ideas from the Word of God, why do we never see a coffee cup with Deuteronomy 28:65? “The LORD will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart.” The point is that verse numbers were added to aid with research. They are not part of the text, and have caused some confusion. (Though I could imagine a bumper sticker with Numbers 21:16, “From there they continued on to Beer.”) As the author points out, using the Bible like this is like snacking on what Philip Yancy called, “Scripture McNuggets.” Rather, Paauw advocates reading large portions, whole books when possible. In this way, we feast, rather than snack. Moreover, such feasting leads to greater understanding of the text.
In chapters 5 and 6, Paauw argues that rather than seeing every single event in the Bible as a direct intervention from God, recognizing that the world is itself a direct intervention of God, and the realm in which he dwells with us and that the events are history that we need not look for the most outlandish understanding. An example he gives is how as a fourth-grader he was shocked to learn that the rainbow was probably not created after the Flood, but rather was already a thing, and God used that as a reminder of his covenant.
In chapters 7 and 8, Paauw challenges the idea that the Bible is a theological treatise, or a “how-to” manual. Rather it is an ongoing story, our story and His, and should be read as such. This is not to say that we cannot derive theology from it. We can and we should. However, when we lose the story, we lose the meaning. In chapter 9, we are encouraged to see how this would look in our lives.
In chapters 10 and 11, Paauw contrasts the “Otherworldly Bible” with the “Earthly Bible.” Here, he rejects the tendency to see Christianity as a means of escaping the evil physical realm to the heavenly one in favor of seeing our mission as redeeming the world God created.
In 12 and 13, he makes the case for reading in community by differentiating “My Private Bible” from the “Synagogue Bible.” Finally, in 14 and 15, the author laments the loss of beauty in the pages of the Bible where there once could be found bright, colorful illustrations, as well as beautiful script on high quality media.
I find much of what Paauw says here compelling. As I mentioned above, the isolation of verses out of context, or “verse jacking,” is a pet peeve of mine. I am a strong advocate of, as Greg Koukl teaches, “Never read a Bible verse.” That is, never read A Bible verse. The method of reading promoted here will avoid many of the pitfalls from isolating verses. Moreover, I have begun to read Books of the Bible, which is an edition of the NIV without chapter and verse numbers, as well as some other interesting features. I can tell you that my ADD is much less active in this text. I suppose it could be argue that Paauw’s book is a written infomercial for Books of the Bible, but that’s okay.
While I tend to agree with Paauw’s view that salvation entails far more involvement with the redemption of the created order than most Christians seem to think, I think that when he claims that the idea of gaining heaven or avoiding hell as a way to invoke urgency offers a false dichotomy. Scripture does seem to paint a clear picture of judgment. It seems reasonable to think in terms of both/and. We are saved to work for the redemption of the world and go to be with the Lord until the ultimate redemption, the resurrection.
Even if you find you don’t agree with all of Paauw’s conclusion, you will agree with me that the book is worth the read. It is accessible for readers at a high school level or higher.
 The author cites, “The highly-descriptive and provocative term “verse jacking” was coined by my colleague John Dunham in “High Fructose Scripture,” Leadership Journal (online), June 5, 2007, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ le/ 2007/ june-online-only/ high-fructose-scripture.html.”
One of my favorite podcasts for its entertainment value (that also has all the substantive things I like in a podcast) is the Phil Vischer Podcast. If you grew up (or raised children) in the 90’s, you’re probably familiar with Vischer’s work from watching Veggie Tales. In his podcast, Vischer is joined by Christian Taylor and Skye Jethani in a panel discussion format. The issues they deal with could be categorized as cultural apologetics.
Some of the comments, particularly from Jethani, but Vischer as well, can seem provocative on the face of it. However, if you carefully consider what they have to say, even if you don’t agree with them completely, they often have a point. They are not shy about calling out the “crazy uncles” of American Christianity.
As long as we’re talking about Vischer’s work, another project worth noting (free plug here) is “What’s In the Bible,” *DING!* a DVD series which presents a survey of the entire Bible using puppetry. Vischer does all the puppetry and all the voices for the characters. It is not a dumbed-down, cutesy Sunday School curriculum. It has great information from which adults can benefit, and it is entertaining for kids and grown-ups. (If you listen to the podcast, you will get the “DING” reference.)
The podcast is free, but if you like the work Vischer does, then you can support him here.
This week I want to call your attention to not just a podcast, but another ministry that has more than one fine podcast. Reasonable Faith, the ministry of Dr. William Lane Craig, is a highly useful resource, including two podcasts: Reasonable Faith, and Defenders. Reasonable Faith is a weekly podcast hosted by Craig and Kevin Harris where they discuss recent events and debates related to Christianity and apologetics. Defenders is a weekly class taught by Craig that is accessible, yet thorough in its systematic treatment of Christian doctrine. Defenders is available as a podcast, but also can be accessed as a live stream on Sundays at 12:45 Eastern time. In addition to the podcasts, the Reasonable Faith website has a wealth of information related to apologetics, as well as philosophy. There is a whole library of videos of Craig’s teaching and debates.
Over the next several posts, I will highlight some really useful resources for Christians. Obviously, being the geek that I am, the emphasis will be on apologetics resources, but many of the websites and podcasts I will profile have a broad range of information for any Christian interested in growing in the area of the life of the mind.
Unlike other “Top…” lists, I will start with what I think is the number one ministry in this field, and the rest will be in no particular order. Far an away my favorite (and arguably the best) is Stand to Reason. Greg Koukl has been like a long-distance (and occasionally up close) mentor to me since around 2000. He has had a radio presence for over 20 years, and the show has been available online since before there were podcasts. It is still available as a live stream on Tuesday evenings from 4-6:00 pm PDT (7-9 EDT) or the show can be downloaded as two one-hour podcasts on Wednesday and Friday. There is also a shorter podcast released twice a week called #STR Ask.
Additionally, he offers a wide range of resources from books (two of which he has written or co-written) as well as short booklets, called Ambassadors’ Guides, which are available in paper or electronic editions. STR also offers instructional DVDs like Tactics. These resources and podcasts can also be accessed through their mobile apps.
STR is a valuable resource to help Christians think more carefully about and communicate their faith.
With a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics, Benjamin Wiker lends his expertise along with the literary insights of Jonathan Witt, Senior Fellow for Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, to the question of just what kind of world we live in. Wiker and Witt do not simply disagree with the reigning paradigm of metaphysical naturalism found in science. They see it as harmful. They have written this book as an antidote to the “poison” that is “the assumption that science has proven that the universe is without purpose, without meaning—proven it so clearly that one need not even produce an argument.” (Wiker and Witt, Location 61.)
The question of meaning has implications for how all of reality is seen. For Christians concerned with preaching the gospel, juxtaposing a divine creator with a meaningless universe is incoherent. This is one of the reasons why the apologetic project is needed in order to make Christianity a live option in the marketplace of ideas. In this particular case, the meaningfulness of the universe needs to be recognized. The poison must be counteracted. Recognizing the fact that human beings are an integral part of the universe, and that we have lived, acted, and created as though the world has meaning, Wiker adds his analysis of the works of Shakespeare which are best understood if meaning were central to human understanding of the world, as well as a comparative analogy to the creativity found in nature.
“The book’s central claim is clearly stated: the universe is meaning-full.” (63) The authors make it plain that they reject the nihilistic paradigm that is claimed to be “proven” by science. They build their case beginning with a historical overview of how the idea of a random, meaningless world goes back to the ancient Greeks and found resurgence in Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud and Marx. The assumption of meaninglessness began to lose momentum as discoveries of order and specified complexity began to emerge such that even a hardened skeptic like Antony Flew was moved to theism. From this background, Wiker and Witt note that just as parts of the cosmos made sense in light of the whole, and perhaps only so, the same is clearly so in literature. Shakespeare’s works are examined to illustrate the point, showing that contrary to Dawkins’ illustration of “Methinks it like a Weasel,” the parts fit the whole, but also that the whole makes no sense if the works and their author are nothing more than matter in motion, or animals driven by the urge to procreate. The genius exhibited by Shakespeare is then used to illustrate the genius Euclid points to in mathematics. The authors show how on a materialist worldview, the existence of mathematics makes no sense, much less its applicability to the material universe. From mathematics, the order and intelligibility of the cosmos, chemistry (especially the periodic table) and biology is examined. Through each discipline, the antidote of structuralism is counteracting the poison of reductionism. Structuralism approaches these questions from the top-down, parts-to-whole view. Such a view is not even considered a live option if one starts from meaninglessness. In fact, it is the only way scientists can discern “the meaning of the data they gather.” Wiker and Witt present case after interrelated case for the meaningful whole of the created order into which each of its parts –matter, energy, chemistry, life in general, and humanity in particular– fits. While so many books of this type focus on particular arguments for God’s existence from specific areas such as cosmogony, fine-tuning, or information theory, Meaningful World looks at the big picture. If the other works study the trees, Wiker and Witt look at the whole forest. They show not only that these things fit, but also that they are made to be discovered as such. They do so with a clear, accessible style and a refreshing dose of humor. While their arguments are logically cogent, their discussion of Shakespeare’s literary acumen appeals to aesthetics. Moreover, while they mention some of the astronomically high levels of improbability of the world being the way it is by chance, they do not hang their whole case there. Another way the thesis of the book can be stated is, “Intelligent design? More like creative genius.”
The literary element they introduce by way of analogy and as a particular example is a rarity in books on this subject. Their use of Shakespeare to illustrate their point is not only a novel way to argue in this arena, but they inspire a new appreciation for the literature itself. Their presentation reaches the reader at the cognitive as well as the intuitive level. Moreover, they present a strong case in favor of their thesis, rather than simply relying on defeaters for its negation. They do more than show that reductionism is false. They present a powerful case for a meaningful world. More than merely meaningful, the authors offer a case for elements of genius in the created order that is analogous to the creative genius of Shakespeare. Wiker and Witt argue that the knowledge offered by the study of mathematics, cosmology, chemistry and biology have the depth, clarity, harmony and elegance one would expect to find in the works of geniuses. This is not design by a minimally intelligent mind, but a designing Genius.
This book is a must-read for anyone interested in the philosophy of science, or the history of the controversy over the Intelligent Design hypothesis. The book is accessible to the layperson without dumbing down the content. While the scholarship of the authors is evident in the content, the engaging style of the prose has none of the dryness that can come from the subject matter. The integrated approach will inform a more fully orbed apologetic than those books that focus on a narrower topic such as the origin of information or the complexity of the living cell. As important as these details are, this book will help you see the forest and the trees.
Mitch Stokes is a Senior Fellow of Philosophy at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Notre Dame under the direction of Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen. At Yale, he earned an M.A. in religion under the direction of Nicholas Wolterstorff. In fact, being trained by Plantinga, van Inwagen and Wolterstorff made J.P. Moreland positively gush at Stokes’ credentials. That is high praise indeed. Stokes is the author of A Shot of Faith (to the Head): Be a Confident Believer in an Age of Cranky Atheists, and the current book under review, How to Be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough.
Many militant atheists pride themselves on their reliance on reason and science to tell them the truth about the world. They are especially confident of their views of science and what it can tell us about morality. Stokes argues that if they were to put their skepticism where their mouths are, they would be a little more hesitant to assert that science has proven that naturalism is true (and therefore theism false) and that morality is real.
How to Be an Atheist is a short book of just over 200 pages, broken into three parts. In part one Stokes shows the problem of relying on reason and science as articulated by one of the “heroes” of the Enlightenment, David Hume. In part two, science is examined to see the limits of what it can tell us, especially with respect to what is unobservable. This section includes a helpful explanation of how theories, which are neither easily dismissed claims nor iron-clad laws, are inferences that try to make sense of what has been observed. (Stokes also holds advanced degrees in engineering, so there is no anti-science bias here.) Also noted is the fact that many of the areas of physics most often cited as evidence for naturalism are instrumental rather than realistic, which is to say, the theories involving quantum mechanics and such are models used to make sense of what can be observed, but do not even claim to accurately describe what cannot be observed. In the third section, Stokes argues that if naturalism is true, then morality, actual good, bad, right and wrong, does not exist. They are merely expressions of human likes and dislikes.
It is this third section that prompted the title of this review. Stokes argues that all values are personal. The thing that makes something good (in a moral sense) is a value holder. Likewise, a duty or obligation is only held between persons. Many atheists would affirm this. However, this is not to say that morality is ultimately grounded in human persons. After all, if all morality is mere human preference, which human? Why this one and not that one? Why yours and not mine? It is not hard to see why this can lead right back to a kind of moral anarchy. As Stokes notes, Christianity has held to what is called “Divine Command” theory of ethics which is the idea that which is good, and that which we are obliged to do and prohibited from doing, is good, obligatory, or prohibited because God has commanded it. He further notes that the common “Euthyphro objection” is resolved when we understand that God commands what he does because his nature is good.
All this is not to say that morality is relative. Moral standards are person centered (or on Stokes’ view, Person centered.) Whatever the standard, whether a behavior measures up is an objective reality. However, it is not the behaviors themselves that are intrinsically good or bad, but these values are derived from the Value Holder, God himself.
Stokes’ book is highly accessible, well reasoned, and fun to read. Stokes has a flare for mixing humor into a technical subject. He is generous in his treatment of those with whom he disagrees, and sets quite the example in this. I highly recommend this book.
Last July, I was contacted by Brandon McGuire telling me about his new film. I ordered a copy and watched it to see how good a resource it would be for my Ratio Christi chapter or any other apologetics classes I teach. The problem I had when I watched it is that having recently completed a Masters Degree in Christian Apologetics, the material in the movie was too familiar. I wasn’t sure if it was too technical for a lay audience, or interesting enough. (Even your favorite song gets old after a while.) So I asked one of my Sunday School students to watch it with her family and let me know if it was helpful. She and her husband have several unbelieving children and relatives whom they invited to see it as well. Her nephew, an atheist, wrote the following review. I thought it was so even-handed and well written that I would share it here, with a few comments at the end.
“MINING FOR GOD” Documentary Review by John Regina
While being the first documentary of this sort that I have watched (at least in recent years), I found myself quite familiar with a good portion of the information and opinions presented, in particular the apologetics that were interspersed throughout. I rather enjoyed the seemingly random interviews conducted in public with (“non-expert”) Americans mainly during the first ten minutes of the film, and in relatively short order was under the impression that one of the film’s primary objectives is an attempt to clarify what it means to be a practicing Christian, as opposed to the many Americans that select their religious and/or spiritual beliefs a la carte (the term “cafeteria style” is used in the film) or have a misapprehension or otherwise vague interpretation of Christianity. I would have liked to see more of these interviews, or at least a more thorough investigation of the “70%” of Americans cited by the film that identify as being Christian.
Directly following the interviews the film’s narrative veers sharply into apologetics, sometimes for the better and other times not. I would consider the information presented in the film to be an entry-level, beginners’ introduction to Christian apologetics, because it covers much ground, including a cursory (although not detailed nor expansive) examination of most of the core claims that I am aware of. I felt that some arguments, as with some of the commentators, were more convincing than others. For instance, I felt that the ‘cosmological, “first cause” argument’ (for God) was summarized brilliantly, mainly by William Lane Craig- although he failed to address the opposing problem of “infinite regression” often cited by skeptics. However, I did not like the manner in which the “teleological argument (or hypothesis of intelligent design)” was presented, due to the Creationist/anti-evolution viewpoint that was briefly expounded upon (by the commentator Donald Williams). I feel that the “argument from morality” was perhaps the strongest, most persuasive argument for the existence of God that was presented, but am also of the opinion that too much time was devoted to the sub-topic of personal sin. Lastly, I found the viewpoints expressed within a couple parts of the film relating to pluralism to be intolerant and at odds with American culture. After all, our country was primarily founded on secular values, and however Christian our nation may be, we should hold firm to our established right to religious freedom, even in rhetoric. Overall I found the film to be informative, well put together and great as an introduction to apologetics.
I really appreciate the tone of this review. I would just like to respond to a few things the author says. In response to the cosmological argument, Regina says “… he failed to address the opposing problem of “infinite regression” often cited by skeptics.” Note that in the argument from first cause, the first premise is “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” God, by definition, never “begins” to exist. For God to begin to exist, he would have to have a cause, which is greater than him. However, if there were anything greater than God, than IT would be God. As Regina noted, the film is a beginners introduction to apologetics. The discussion on the impossibility of actual infinites can be technical, and making it accessible would be lengthy. I discussion of this can be found here.
Regina thought too much of the discussion of the moral argument focused on personal sin. But the whole point of noting the existence of objective morality is that personal sin is a real problem, for which Christ is a real solution.
Finally, Regina seems to conflate the ideas of religious pluralism with civic pluralism. Religious pluralism is the claim that all religions are equally true and valid. However, logically the only way this could be true is if they are all false, since they make contradictory truth claims. Christianity claims to accurately describe reality. If it does, then religions that contradict Christianity are necessarily false inasmuch as they contradict it. Likewise, if any religion that contradicts Christianity accurately describes reality, then Christianity is false. Civic pluralism, on the other hand, is the view that each citizen has the right to believe what he wants without fear of government interference. Christianity is only “intolerant” in the way the word has been redefined to mean disagreement. That it is at odds with American culture, well so what? As for religious freedom, that too is a Christian idea. We share the Gospel with people. We do not try to force it on them. As to the “secular” values that America was founded on, even letting the claim pass, the values America was founded upon result from the impact Christianity has had on Western Civilization. More on that can be found in Glenn Sunshine’s fine book Why You Think the Way You Do, a review of which can be found here.
Once again I want to say how much I appreciate the thought Regina put into his review. Too often reviews of films like this from an opposing view tend to come from trolls. (I know, we have our share too.)
This past weekend I saw the new movie God’s Not Dead 2. My expectations were tempered by having seen the first movie. For those who may not have seen it, the original God’s Not Dead was the story of a Christian college student who found himself having to chose between writing “God is dead” for a Philosophy grade, or go head-to-head with his atheist professor defending God’s existence. In that movie, the apologetic elements were a natural part of the central story of the movie. While the film suffered many of the problems common to “faith” films, such as the excessively happy endings with few loose ends, (what my pastor aptly called a “Hallmark-y” quality) it at least portrayed the value of apologetics for strengthening the faith of believers and giving non-believers something to think about. It was a decent storyline with a combination of fine performances and clichéd subplots. The sequel was another matter.
In GND2, a high school history teacher is disciplined and sued for quoting Jesus’ words in the context of a discussion of nonviolent protests such as that of Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. The first crack in the plausibility of this was the reaction of the teacher, played by Melissa Joan Hart. You are a history teacher answering a student’s question about Jesus’ influence on Ghandi and King, and when you are asked to defend your actions, your first reaction is “But, that is what I believe.” Really? It took half the trial for you to realize, “Hey, wait! I was teaching history, quoting Jesus as a historical figure.” And then it becomes necessary to have Lee Strobel and J. Warner Wallace testify that Jesus is a real historical figure? I’m a huge fan of both of these men, but I couldn’t help but feel like their parts in the movie were forced.
Then (spoiler alert) when the verdict is announced, the group of Christians praying in front of the courthouse starts chanting, “God’s not dead, he’s fully alive.” Really? I like the Newsboys, but their appearance in the movie was almost as contrived as putting Stobel and Wallace on the stand in the trial.
Joining the list of disjointed subplots was a meeting of local clergy chaired by the late Fred Thompson announcing that the local prosecutor was subpoenaing their sermon notes, a subplot that went undeveloped in the rest of the movie beyond a threat by the prosecutor directed at the lone pastor who refused. Was this a case of “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks,” or the premise for a GND 3?
Lest you think I found nothing good in this movie, let me say what I liked. There was a character in the first movie, a left-wing blogger who was diagnosed with cancer. She (along with almost everyone else in the first movie) became a Christian. In the sequel, she discovers she has been healed. While this is an uplifting (if predictable) part of the story, I appreciate that the Hallmark factor was dialed back, and she was portrayed as struggling with doubts about her faith right after the healing. This was one of the most realistic things in the movie. Additionally, the main character retells how she heard God speak to her. I hear many people claim this, saying God told them a, b, or c, and you are left to think, ”Okay, I guess.” There is nothing in the alleged message that can be tested, and they show not miraculous power to attest it. I will not engage in a debate over whether God gives personal messages to individuals (he certainly can if he wishes.) It is not at all clear, however that Scripture teaches that we can expect him to. However, when asked what God told her, she said, “Who do you say I am?” This is a direct quote of Jesus from Matthew 16:15. The Bible clearly teaches that God will “bring to remembrance all I have taught you.” I admit some would question how I am using that quote, but the point is, it is entirely reasonable to think the Holy Spirit will bring to mind passages from what God has already said.
God’s Not Dead 2 looks and feels like it was made in the Bible Belt, for the Bible Belt. However, many of us, including me, live up here in the plumber’s butt crack sticking up over the Bible Belt. We long for the day when a movie is made that presents the Christian worldview that is not cheesy and heavy-handed, and does not rely on clichés of the Christian subculture.
Proverbs 16:22 says, “Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion.” This proverb uses the incongruity of gold rings and pig’s snouts to make a point. I am not comparing the movie to a beautiful woman who shows no discretion. However, the incongruity of fine individual performances with a disjointed story line seem just as stark.