Thanks for a very interesting review, Brenton. I watched this film last week on a day when I wanted something "escapist" and found myself pleasantly surprised. You bring up some very good points about the philosophy of the film.

I especially like this question, which applies very much to our foreign policy: "What if his eyes had been opened not only to the humanity of the persecuted but also to the value of the persecutors? Can you imagine a superhero taking a vow to protect life everywhere, flying around in impenetrable armor not only to free the persecuted from persecution, but also to liberate the persecutors from persecuting?" I wonder what that might look like?

Dream on Brenton, the only thing the director and producer were thinking about was how to make a buck off of a story, any story, whether it is true or false. Money is the name of the game in Hollywood.

I once worked with a lady who had just moved to America from Russia. Having grown up under Communism the only movies she had seen were movie/documentaries which were supposed to be true. When she went to the movies here she thought they were true. I tried to persuade her they were truths and lies mixed together to make a buck. You give your money, the theater gives you a thrill, it has nothing to do with reality. She couldn’t believe people would do such a thing. The big shocker; when I told her what she thought was the truth in the movie/documentaries of her own country was propaganda of the state. This ended all conversation for a while.

I suppose Lucifer thought he could disobey God in Heaven and still live there. Was he in for a shock when God bundled he and his angels and forcibly threw them out of heaven. He probably screamed: where was the love that God had so often talked about? For the first time in his life he saw a side of God he had never seen before. God had always been mister nice guy before. Since then he has found by hard experience God is a lot tougher than he ever thought He could be.

Hey Brent, i haven't watched the movie yet, but if i ever do, i'll remember your review. interesting points and questions for sure.

I like both of the comments on Brenton's movie review. I like the review too. For me the big difference between the reality of Paul and his mission and that of Tony Stark (even if Tony had been trying to "liberate" the persecutors) was this: respect of free will. God, as much as it pains Him, is willing to present us with truth, and then allows us to make up our own minds whether or not to accept the salvation and allow a change to take place in our lives. I don't think that Iron Man would have been so "accommodating" to the bad guys.

In the movie version of the plan for salvation, everyone would finally realize the error of their ways and choose to be saved through the blood of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately this isn't the movies, and most people just don't seem to want to make that choice. More unfortunate is the fact that in the end, God WILL have to take the role of defender of the innocent (are we really that innocent? Hmm...) by destroying the wicked once and for all. No more mister nice guy, once again, as JB pointed out. Thank God that it will be the last time He will have to take on that role.

Even so Lord, come quickly.

Thanks Daneen,

The concept of freeing both oppressors and oppressed comes from Desmond Tutu who in his 1984 Nobel Lecture said,

"When will we learn that human beings are of infinite value because they have been created in the image of God, and that it is a blasphemy to treat them as if they were less than this and to do so ultimately recoils on those who do this? In dehumanizing others, they are themselves dehumanized. Perhaps oppression dehumanizes the oppressor as much as, if not more than, the oppressed. They need each other to become truly free, to become human. We can be human only in fellowship, in community, in koinonia, in peace."

Perhaps the relative success of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission assembled in South Africa after the end of Apartheid provides a glimpse, however imperfect and fleeting, of what this might look like.

JB,

Thank you, I will go on dreaming. Dreaming along with Shane Claiborne that another world is possible. And, I will continue to look for glimpses of that world wherever they can be found.

I agree that one of the major motivating factors for most Hollywood blockbusters is necessarily to make money. However, I think this is best accomplished (though admittedly not always) by telling good stories rather than simply mixing truth and lies. And, the best stories often have fascinating convergences with the stories in the Bible. Film is a powerful medium for catching the trajectory of scripture and riding it right into our current context.

And I think you are right, Lucifer found out God is much tougher than he ever thought he could be. But, the toughness of God that surely shocked Lucifer and continues to disarm evil in all its forms is not the expected show of reciprocal force but rather the unnerving toughness of One who when he was reviled, He did not revile in return and the hate-exposing actions of One who when He suffered, He did not threaten.

Sarah,

Thanks for your comment.

bse2dmd,

Good point. I like that. Freedom of choice is key. I prefer to see destruction of the wicked as natural consequences of that choice rather than the unnatural act of an avenging God. (Have we had this conversation before?) Maybe that view is just my own personal preference for natural consequences as influenced by Dan Smith.

After reading this review, it brought back small memories of my own. As a person who practiced the religion of Islam, I would make fun of Christians and tell them that the Holy Bible had alot errors and should be burn. But after studying the Holy Bible for myself, I was DEAD wrong. The Holy Qur'an is both a fraud and a fairytale. Praise Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God and the Holy Bible.

An interesting question is why the American imagination is host to such a plethora of superheroes? Could it be that this is popular culture's way of dealing with theodicy? That the superhero genre is an attempt to rewrite the Judeo-Christian religion in terms of Supernatural Power standing up for powerless people in ways that matter in the here and now? Just like the television series "Touched by an Angel" portrayed religion the way we would have liked it to be, rather than the way it is.

Wow--love that quote from Desmond Tutu, Brenton. What a concept. And, I also agree that film is a powerful medium with potential for much good; it is our collective storytelling conscious today. As is true in essentially all of our endeavors, money plays a role, but luckily people spend more money on stories that ring true to life. As an English teacher, I've long loved Picasso's saying that "Art is a lie which tells the truth." I think that idea helps us understand why all forms of art can be so powerful.

Aage--that's a fascinating question about the American imagination's constant appetite for superheroes and theodicy. Hmm, I'll have to think on that one.

Thanks Aage,

That is an interesting question. I had never considered how our collective fascination with superheroes might reflect our culture's way of dealing with theodicy.

Your comment has me considering a related concept. Does our desire for an avenging superhero, leading to the popularity of movies such as Iron Man, also affect the way we think and talk about God? In other words, rather than superheroes approximating God, do our descriptions of God instead approximate superheroes?

I can see it now, a T-shirt with the phrase "God is my Superhero" emblazoned across the back. I bet it would sell.

The movie producers are well aware that superheroism sells. The Good vs. Evil (God vs. Satan?) is found in so many movies that there isn't room to list them all. Good nearly always triumphs; the white hats win over the black hats; the cowboys over the Indians; John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies ALWAYS are sell-outs because it's a familiar genre that makes money.

Brenton
The OT writers who occupied themselves the most with theodicy were frustrated that God would not in the here and now assume the role of avenger. In later Judaism, the Messiah came to be seen as a promised superman who would flex his God-given muscles to clear the Holy Land of the detested Romans with their pagan battle standards, their inscence and their imperial statues. And to Christians, the Book of Revelation promises that Jesus--who comes across as the ultimate anti-superhero in the Gospels--will return as the fullfilment of every superman dream, avenging all the evil deeds ever done in a blaze of apocalyptic gore and glory.

In the meantime, evil men prosper while the good suffer, and believers are asked to defer seemingly forever the gratification of seeing justice triumph. No wonder tales of superheroes resonate in such a setting.

Europe has seen real people try to play the role of a superhero--Charlemagne, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin come to mind--but imaginary superheroes are few and far between (Franco-Belgian Asterix is about it). For there to be a sense of theodicy, there must be faith. If people don't believe in God as divine avenger, they don't expect divine justice, nor do they blame God for leaving them in the lurch. Hence the search for secular supermen and crime fighters. Sherlock Holmes, Father Brown, Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, these are the European superheroes, the avengers who act on our behalf.

In action movies, it the popular theme of avenger is emotionally satisfying to those who consider themselves oppressed. If the avenger did turn out to be a reconciler/redeemer- would that thwart the sense of justice if past sins were not met with punishment? Jonah was suicidal over this "weakness" of His God. Would we be happy with a theodicy if universalism was the eventual end? Would justice still be satisfied?

Arlyn,

Are you aware of any court system that would allow an innocent person to pay for the crimes of another, especially by incarceration or execution? Would that satisfy our demands for justice?

Why then, are we to be satisfied that Jesus paid for our sins with his death? How does that satisfy any justice system, and did the justice system then under the Romans demand and accept it?

The analogy which is most often used is just that: Jesus paid the "price" for our sins and so we are automatically exempt. How does that work if we are not able to accept it in real life today?

What is meant by "Would we be happy with a theodicy if universalism was the eventual end? Would justice be satisfied?"

The parable of the workers who toiled all day that were paid exactly as those who worked one hour is an apt illustration; as is the thief on the cross who could demonstrate universalism, couldn't it?

Arlyn,

I liked the train of thought you have going. Well, I like the fact that you got it going. It actually disturbs me a little :)

One comment on the idea of the thief on the cross being an example for universalism though....it would only demonstrate it if BOTH of the thieves would have chosen eternal life. No matter how it's laid out, some people will always choose their way instead of God's way. Sad, but true. What's that old saying..."You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

Thanks to everyone for great thoughts and comments.

Arlyn asks, "Would we be happy with a theodicy if universalism was the eventual end? Would justice still be satisfied?"

By the negative reaction it tends to get, it seems most of us would not be happy with universalism but we should be. My understanding is that God is at heart a universalist (II Peter 3:9) and that should at least make us hope universalism is possible. And as for justice, that deserves a whole thread of its own.

However, as bse2dmd says, I will admit that with the illogical self-destructive choices I see people make every day in regard to their health, it does seem likely (though inexplicable) that when given free choice some will choose pride, greed, impurity, lust, violence, revenge, and destruction over humility, compassion, kindness, love, gentleness, reconciliation, and restoration.

In fact, as has been discussed at length on this blog, religious people have justified ethnic cleansing, slavery, segregation, and most recently war thus exemplyfing these same destructive choices within the very communities claiming to follow God. It saddens me when we make illogical choices but it terrifies me when we legitimize our self-destructive choices by projecting them onto God, creating a 'superhero' deity with our own faulty reasoning writ large and in charge.

Brenton, I wonder if your office was under attack by terorists, you would have some of the same views you express in the review. I saw the movie, and at the end of the day, the "missile man" still has to dole out violence or "justice". God has justice in His personality and will destroy to protect those He loves and those who love Him. Why is that such a strange concept, only because bad people use good things badly????

Pacifism in its purist form, is a weak position. It gives the evil strong the upper hand, and does not protect the freedoms that allows you and I to freely write what we are writing. You are idealistic. God WILL have to destroy evil, it will be an act of LOVE.

In World War II, the Holocaust was the result of Pacifism. Normandy, as violent as it was, was an act of redemption and love. Keep your idealism but be logical and practical. Remember how you felt on 9/10. I will never forget!! If we had that same feeling today that lets terrorists learn on our soil to just fly huge plane, but not learn to take off or land them, we deserve what comes our way, IMO.

As for Universalism, how can it work. What is mixed in to what some believe is the elimination of others to meet their religious goals if we are in their way.

If there are those who will noto be eternally lost, what would we "good" people have to work and live for? Is life a zero-sum game? There must be losers in order to have winners? It has too often been a game of deciding who would be the lucky saved ones and who wouldn't.

If God decides in his omniscience to save all his children, will there be those who, like the men who toiled all day in the vineyard, resent those who received the same pay for working only an hour?

Elaine, you seem to forget the other parable of the man who buried his money given by the master, not even getting interest for a return. The Master was angry at such sloth.

Predestination seems to be the jist of your post. God wishes all to be saved.

I Tim 2:5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

This text would suggest there is a gift of eternal life for all men, but not all will choose to accept it or receive it and will be lost.

RDS,

Thanks, I was wondering if anyone would bring up the pacifism issue! I am not as strict a pacifist as I might sound but I am becoming more and more convinced that the biblical record (New Testament) is soundly on the side of pacifism.

World War II was not caused by pacifism. It was caused by a megalomaniac who utilized the harsh circumstances following WWI in order to rally an entire nation to set out on a path of revenge and perceived manifest destiny.

Chamberlain's appeasement probably had more to do with his nearsighted desire to hold together the crumbling British empire at the expense of redrawing the European mainland map than with simple pacifism. (See this NY Times article.) Nevertheless, I get your point. Standing up to Hitler earlier may have lessened the length and severity of the war.

I have no idea how I would react to a personal terrorist attack. And I hope to never find out. My idealistic opinion that there are some things worth dying for but nothing worth killing for might fail me. However, I can assure you that even in the heat of attack, I would much prefer someone to disarm the terrorists rather than having to kill them.

Furthermore, I am convinced that our current morass in Iraq may have slowed down stateside attacks for now but it has made the possibility of future terrorist attacks more likely. I said above that I wished our policy following 9/11 had been more about love and compassion than shock-and-awe. What I meant is, yes let's go get the bad guys with a coalition in a focused attack. I think there was ample reason to go after the Taliban. However, our main focus should have been on infrastructural, educational, economic, and environmental development rather than violent subjugation. Maybe that is what we are doing but from what I have seen and heard the warfare aspect is taking top dollar and the highest emphasis and I think this is the exact opposite of what our stated and practiced priorities should be. (The final scenes of Charlie Wilson's War express this concept eloquently enough.)

And, as for the current debate about diplomacy with our 'enemies' which has been maligned as Chamberlain like appeasement, to quote Senator Biden, "Since when has talking removed the word “no” from our vocabulary?"

Brenton, thanks for your response. Had we started with education and infrastructure before the RPGs were destroyed or collected, all effort might be for not.

If talking unconditionally to our "enemies" is your idea of idealistic diplomacy, may I ask, why not talk to Brinsmead and Ford, unconditionally??? Sometimes I think we look out at the world differently than we do at our own problems and internal diplomacy!!!

RDS
Since when did Brinsmead and Ford become "enemies"? I have met them both and the only thing that's wrong with them is that they're independent thinkers, and that they happened upon the scene at a time when the Adventist church was run by Stalinists.

This is the curse of fundamentalism, the inability to deal with difference of opinion in a friendly way. To fundamentalists people who don't share their own particular outlook, need to be labelled "enemies." Christianity or Islam, to these people, is a question of either you're with us or you're against us, either you're in favor of God or you're espousing the cause of Satan.

Dave Larson impressed me a great deal with the way he dealt with people who disliked Steps to Christ on a previous thread. He essentially expressed his sympathies but said that their experience was not his. How much heartache could not have been avoided if church leaders had been mature enough to deal with its creative people that way. People who disagree want to be heard, they don't necessarily want to force their views on people (unless, of course, they're fundamentalists).

Fundamentalism is an empty vehicle that you can pour any ideology into, and invariably it will poison the atmosphere of people who breathe it. It was what animated the Soviet Union. It's what's driving the Islamists in the Muslim world, and it's deplorable to see it still surving in this country.

RDS,

Perhaps you are right but had we emphasized education, infrastructure and humanitarian aid in Afghanistan rather than simply heavily arming the Mujahideen and then (to borrow a phrase) 'cutting and running' the world might be a very different place. After the expulsion of the Russian forces followed by the fall of Communism there was infighting among the mujahideen groups in Afghanistan. At that time with the United States at the height of its global power, we abandoned Afghanistan completely. Hey, the war was over right? There was no diplomatic effort to resolve the conflicts and no effort to set in motion a rebuilding of Afghanistan. Enter the Taliban...

I think our focus was and is horribly misplaced.

And as for Brinsmead and Ford, I grew up with the idea that they were one step removed from the Anti-Christ himself. Then, I read some of Ford's thoughts myself and while I don't entirely agree with him, I realized he is a sincere fellow seeker and his voice is welcome and needed.

Thanks.

Brenton (& all others),

You said; "Perhaps you are right but had we emphasized education, infrastructure and humanitarian aid in Afghanistan rather than simply heavily arming the Mujahideen and then (to borrow a phrase) 'cutting and running' the world might be a very different place."

Have you read (or listened to the audio book) "3-Cups of Tea" by David Oliver about the efforts of Greg Mortenson in building schools in western Pakistan? One man did more good in improving the relations between peoples of different cultures than all of our statesmen and politicians put together. However, this has probably been largely undone by Bushes war in the area.
Alyce