Catholic Writer Prays For End of Vatican State

This article is astounding coming from a Catholic, he makes the same historical argument made in Petrus Romanus and concludes “the time has come for Catholics to pray for an end to the Vatican state.”


Faithful should distinguish between Catholic faith and Vatican state

OPINION: Maybe time has come to pray for an end to the Vatican state, Europe’s last absolute monarchy, writes JOHN MANNION

THE PUBLIC response to the recent Vatican embassy closure indicates that many devout Catholics are unable to distinguish between the Catholic faith and the Vatican state.

Central to the former is our belief in Jesus Christ as God incarnate, but nowhere in our creed do we profess a belief in the Vatican state, of whose origins and history we know practically nothing.

Given that Taoiseach Enda Kenny travels to Rome this weekend to meet the pope, it may be timely to try lift the veil on these matters.

Irish Times

Free Videos Geisler and Rosenberg Address Replacement Theology

I wanted to post this because it is a really good deal to get access to a conference like this which occurred only a few days ago. The below is from Joel Rosenberg.

Today, unfortunately, there are millions of people who believe that God has rejected Israel and the Jewish people. Some don’t believe the Old Testament Scriptures ever indicated that God sovereignly chose Israel to bless her, and chose to make her a blessing to all the families of the earth, and that He also sovereignly promised to give the Jewish people the land of Israel as an “everlasting possession.” Others believe that yes, the Old Testament made those promises, but that the New Testament changed or modified or even abrogated those promises. Such views are known as “Replacement Theology,” or “supercessionism,” or sometimes as “fulfillment theology.”Tragically, such thinking among church leaders in Germany in the early 1900s created a poisonous, anti-Semitic environment which Adolf Hitler latched onto, rode to power, and then manipulated for the “Final Solution” and the murder of six million Jews during the Holocaust. Replacement theology won’t necessarily lead to genocide. But it can, and it has. Not all who hold various forms of Replacement Theology are anti-Semitic. Some are just misinformed or misguided. And misguided bad theology can lead to misguided actions.

At The Joshua Fund’s 2012 Epicenter Conference, we invited some of the world’s foremost Bible scholars and theologians in these areas to walk us through these sensitive and controversial issues. I’m so grateful to report that not only did they do a brilliant job, they also communicated in a way that was easy — even enjoyable — to understand. Here are links to three important videos from the conference on these issues. I hope you find them helpful and will pass them along to others to watch and consider, as well.


Ground Zero Radio 9-14-2012

I will be on tonight for 3 hours 10PM-1AM EST, discussing Petrus Romanus and related issues, click the banner below to listen in!

Testing the Spirits (part 3) – Rome’s Marian Dogma

By Cris Putnam
Finishing up the Testing the Spirits series (see part 1 and part 2) we now discuss the third test in 1 John 4: Does it conform to the apostolic teaching in the New Testament? “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1 Jn 4:6) Now I think it is fair to assume when John writes, “listens to us,” he means himself and his fellow apostles who knew Jesus during his three year earthy ministry. Thus, for this final test we ask, when you bring God’s word to bear upon the teaching and those teaching it, does it agree and do they respond to it?

Jesus warned us “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”(Mt 7:15) This applies even if they work miracles, so be cautious, “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”(Mt 24:24) Jesus is telling us that miracles can be deceptive, this is hard because many people report things that seem beneficial like healings, but even so you must compare their ideas to biblical doctrine. This can be especially difficult when you see what appears to be good fruit.

Every year, nearly 6 million pilgrims visit Lourdes, France because “Mary” was said to appear there. People report being healed from diseases and see apparitions of Mary. However, few Catholics are aware of the dubious origin of “Our Lady of Lourdes.” The apparition first appeared to an impressionable teenager, Bernadette Soubirous under very questionable circumstances. But what is astounding is that Bernadette originally never believed it to be Mary until she was pressured by a local priest. I quote from Lynn Picknett’s excellent work on the paranormal, Flight’s of Fancy:

In February 1858, fourteen-year-old Bernadette Soubirous had discovered a strange creature, apparently suspended between the branches of a tree. It glowed, smiled and beckoned. The future Catholic Saint did not, as in the Hollywood version, fall enraptured to her knees, but ran home to grab a bottle of holy water to throw at ‘that thing’, as she called the vision. She believed it to be a demon, sent by the devil to lure her to doom, and perhaps she was right.

…She took her extraordinary secret to the parish priest, the only man of letters she knew. History might have taken a different turn, had he not been a fierce defender of Mariolatry at a time when the status of the Virgin was being challenged within the Catholic Church.[1]

The priest transformed this phantasm into evidence for the Marian phenomenon and the rest is history. Astonishingly, Bernadette was heralded as a mystic, canonized as a saint in 1933, and even given her own feast day on the sixteenth of April.  But how does Marian theology match up with the apostolic teaching?

Grotto at the Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes, France

Perhaps the clearest evidence that the Catholic view of Mary is legendary rather than historical is how the Marian mythology has evolved over time. Whereas the doctrine of Christ has remained stable since the early creeds, Marian dogma continues to evolve: 1) in 431, she was called the “Mother of God”; 2) by 600, prayers were officially offered to Mary; 3) in 649, Pope Martin I stressed the perpetual nature of Mary’s virginity declaring her the “blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary”; 4) in 1854 came the dogmatic assertion of the Immaculate Conception (that she was born sinless); 5) in 1950, we have the Assumption of Mary (her body was taken to heaven); 6) as recently as 1965, she was proclaimed “Mother of the Church”; 7) currently there is an earnest campaign to proclaim Mary as “Co-Redemptrix Mediatrix of All Graces” and “Advocate for the People of God.” (The latter is widely accepted and taught but has not been dogmatized due to the potential negative repercussions for ecumenism.) While number one can be uncontroversial when interpreted within the constraints of biblical theology, the dogmas of perpetual virginity, sinlessness, Immaculate Conception, bodily assumption, and mediatorship, along with the veneration of Mary and her images, are wholly inconsistent with Scripture. In lieu of the more extended discussion in my book with Tom Horn Petrus Romanus we examine the latter “Co-Redemptrix Mediatrix of All Graces” in light of John’s admonition to test the spirits against the apostolic teaching.

Mary was given the title “Mediatrix” in the papal bull “Ineffabilis” of Pope Pius IX, the same document that proclaimed her immaculate conception. In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI affirmed this blasphemy when he referred to her as “the mediator of God’s blessing for the world.” Rome’s theologians argue it is an inference from her role in the incarnation of the God-man Christ Jesus. They further claim she had a role in His sacrifice on the cross to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind. While there is nothing in the Bible to support it, they extend the role to the more demanding sense that, after her death, “Mary’s intercessory co-operation extends to all graces, which are conferred on mankind, so that no grace accrues to men, without the intercession of Mary.”[2] This is untenable and idolatrous. Let’s compare a few more Scriptures with Rome’s increasingly Marian mythology.

Sacred Scripture (underline added) Roman Dogma (underline added)
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6).


“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28).

“From that great treasure of all graces, which the Lord has brought, nothing, according to the will of God, comes to us except through Mary, so that, as nobody can approach the Supreme Father except through the Son, similarly nobody can approach Christ except through the Mother.” —Pope Leo 13th[3]
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [He] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Ge 3:15).


“And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen” (Ro 16:20).


“All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin—in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints.” —Pope Pius IX [4]
“For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven” (Col 1:19–20).


“In the power of the grace of Redemption merited by Christ, Mary, by her spiritual entering into the sacrifice of her Divine Son for men, made atonement for the sins of men, and (de congruo) merited the application of the redemptive grace of Christ. In this manner she co-operates in the subjective redemption of mankind.”[5]
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Ti 2:5).


“Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her intercession in Heaven (Mediatio in speciali). Since her assumption into Heaven, Mary co-operates in the application of the grace of Redemption to man.”[6]



While the last example is particularly offensive, according to Walter Martin, official Catholic sources have formulated it in even more blasphemous language as, “There is one Mediator between Christ and men, the Holy Mother Mary. Mary is the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to Jesus but by Mary.”[7] This astonishing phrasing has the earmark of the demonic as it is deliberately designed to mock 1Timothy 2:5 and John 14:6 by usurping Christ’s unique role and authority. No matter what visions, emotional passions, and physical healings are associated with the Marian paranormal phenomenon, it is not from God.

As if this is not bad enough, the majority of Romanists now position the imposter as “Coredemptrix,” implying that she is involved in the task of saving sinners. While savvy Catholic theologians are hesitant to sign on, the title is tacitly approved by the Catholic Magisterium. In a 1918, Pope Benedict XV wrote:

As the blessed Virgin Mary does not seem to participate in the public life of Jesus Christ, and then, suddenly appears at the stations of his cross, she is not there without divine intention. She suffers with her suffering and dying son, almost as if she would have died herself. For the salvation of mankind, she gave up her rights as the mother of her son and sacrificed him for the reconciliation of divine justice, as far as she was permitted to do. Therefore, one can say, she redeemed with Christ the human race.[8]

It is because of arguments like this that the term non sequitur was invented. Mary did not allow Christ to die on the cross; she certainly would have prevented it if she could have. Did she suffer for our sins? In John 19, Jesus speaks to Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Cleophas, the Apostle John, and His mother Mary. I’m sure it was terrible for the others as well. Does it follow that they all suffered for our sins as well? She did not give up her rights as mother, the Roman authorities arrested Jesus, she had no choice in the matter and she certainly did not redeem anyone. Do Catholic leaders not see the fallacious special pleading in this sophomoric reasoning? It is hard to believe an alleged intellectual would publicly advance such poor argumentation. It seems, in the stupefying spirit of antichrist, the pope went to extravagantly inept lengths to diminish Christ’s redemptive work.

Unfortunately, it has only festered since. According to a 1997 Newsweek cover story, Pope John Paul II had “received 4,340,429 signatures from 157 countries—an average of 100,000 a month—supporting the proposed dogma. Among the notable supporters are Mother Teresa of Calcutta, nearly 500 bishops and 42 cardinals, including John O’Connor of New York, Joseph Glemp of Poland and half a dozen cardinals at the Vatican itself.”[9] The Marian phenomenon has increased significantly since then and it seems the only reason the title has not been officially dogmatized is in deference to ecumenism. The apparition that appears to thousands now calls itself the “Coredemptrix.”[10] Clearly, this phantom femme fatale is an ambitious usurper of Christ’s unique and incomparable role. This is unmistakably in the spirit of antichrist.



The latter half of this post is excerpted from the book I co-authored with Tom Horn, Petrus Romanus, which contains a more thorough examination of Marian dogmas as well as other Catholic teachings. If you would like a signed copy please order here.


[1] Lynn Picknett, Flights of Fancy (London: Ward Lock, 1987), 82-83.

[2] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 213.

[3] Pope Leo XIII, Rosary Encyclical, “Octobri mense” (1891) as quoted in Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 213.

[4] Pope Pius IX, “Ineffabilis Deus,” Papal Encyclicals Online, December 8, 1854, viewable here: last accessed January 5, 2012,

[5] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 213.

[6] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 213.

[7] Walter Martin, The Roman Catholic Church in History (Livingston, NJ: Christian Research Institute, 1960), 49.

[8] Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Inter Soldalica, AAS 1918, 181.

[9] Kenneth L Woodward and Andrew Murr, “Hail Mary,” Newsweek, Vol. 130 Issue 8, (08/25/97), 48.

[10] Amsterdam, “Lady of All Nations,” channeled messages by Ida Peerdeman. For more information, see: last accessed, January 24, 2012,

Book Review Hollywood Worldviews by Brian Godawa

By Cris Putnam in association with Apologetics 315
Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom & Discernment by Brian Godawa, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002, 210 pages, $9.99 kindle edition.

Brian Godawa is a professional screen writer with successful movies like To End All Wars, The Visitation, and Change Your Life to his credit. He is also an evangelical Christian with a passion for teaching biblical discernment in regard to films. He writes that “God loves movies”[1] because seventy percent of the Bible is communicated through creative genres like narrative, stories and poems. It follows that God uses drama as a powerful means to teach truth. It also follows that the secular world uses them to promote a different agenda. Whether one is aware of it or not entertainment mediums are promoting a worldview. Accordingly, Christians should cultivate a sophisticated understanding of how those mediums are employed in our culture. Godawa states his goal succinctly, “to help the viewer discern those ideas that drive the story to its destination and see how they influence us to live our lives-to understand the story behind the story.”[2] He examines two equal but opposite errors: cultural desertion (anorexia) and cultural immersion (gluttony). The book is divided into three sections Act 1: Storytelling in Movies, Act 2: Worldviews in Movies, and Act 3: Spirituality in Movies. The paper will attempt to show that the book is valuable for developing a discerning eye.

In dealing with objectionable content like sex and violence, an important point is it is the context of the material that determines its status. For example, gratuitous violence celebrating a nihilistic worldview is much more offensive than the same violence depicted in a just war. He cites narratives from the book of Judges as potent examples of horrendous conduct unabashedly presented in the Bible (e.g. Judges 19). He provides a thorough cataloging of R rated images and devices in the Old and New Testaments inferring that in the right context, such material is not out of bounds for Christian consumers. He argues, “If we ignore truth’s darker side, we are focusing on half-truths, and there are no fuller, more complete lies than half-truths.”[3] Our opinion should be based on context; we need ask what it the author’s intent? In way of summary, content is evaluated by four factors: 1) intent (is it exploitive?); 2) depiction (is it gratuitous?); 3) consequences (is evil affirmed?); 4) context (as exemplified by the Bible, context makes all the difference).

Chapter two asserts that movies are the mythology of American culture and that every story is informed by a worldview. Myth, in this sense, is a story which seeks to explain the big questions people ask. For example, the superhero genre is modernization of the heroes of old like Odysseus. Some, like Superman, make allusions to the Bible, while others subvert the genre and present tragically flawed characters like The Dark Knight. Next, Westerns are discussed as a reinforcement of the American ideal of the rugged individual. Godawa reveals that, “movies are one of the most effective means of communicating mythology because they are a story-centered medium that captures and reflects our deeply held beliefs.”[4] Hollywood is particularly fond of Joseph Campbell’s construction of the Hero “monomyth” loosely based on Jungian psychology. Whereas secularists might attempt to explain the biblical stories as merely one myth among many, Godawa, like C.S. Lewis, argues that Christianity is the underlying truth behind the monomyth. God is the ultimate storyteller and all other myths are necessarily derivative.

Chapter three tackles the major elements of a movie. The first is the theme, what the story is all about or the “moral” of the story. Godawa asserts that most movies have a redemptive theme similar to a Christian testimony albeit many are self-actualized. The hero and his goal is the next major element. The adversary opposes the hero’s goal. Accordingly, this foe usually has a conflicting worldview to the hero. A typical plot line will showcase a tragic character flaw in the hero and an apparent defeat at the hands of the adversary. This results in the hero “running the gauntlet” and after a moment of truth coming face to face with the adversary. This forces the hero to a moment of self-reflection emphasizing the conflicting worldviews while promoting the one the author holds dear. The resolution is the final element which shows the heroes redemption or, in some cases, tragic consequence. While movies are about the story and stories are mostly about redemption, different worldviews place their philosophical spin on the meaning of redemption entailing “the recovery of something lost or the attainment of something needed.”[5] Understanding the craft of story allows the viewer to discern the writer’s values.

Act two of the book deals with philosophical movements and how they have informed the themes of modern movies. The first is existentialism which fuels three main themes: 1) chance over destiny; 2) freedom over rules and 3) action over contemplation.[6] The former is based on enlightenment rationalism and denies any sort of divine providence or destiny. This theme, including titles like Forrest Gump, Being There, and Grand Canyon, elevates chance as driving force of the universe. Life is represented as ultimately absurd. Pleasantville is a film about freedom over rules and Alexander is representative of action over contemplation. These reveal how existentialist worldviews rebel against rules and elevate experience over thought. From Woody Allen’s dark nihilism to the Nietzschean “morality” fable, Godawa shows how existentialism in ubiquitous in popular movies. While they have much in common, the existentialist favors individualism but the postmodernist favors the collective.

Postmodernists question all claims to objective universal knowledge. Accordingly they necessarily deny God’s story revealed in scripture as an oppressive metanarrative. While atheistic versions deny the existence of truth, there are Christian postmodernists who deny the knowledge of truth by questioning biblical interpretation (e.g. Brian McClaren, Rob Bell). The postmodernist holds that reality is a social construct of language. Movies like The Invasion, The Dark Knight and Pulp Fiction are promoting the postmodern worldview. These sorts of movies subvert absolutes, blend good and evil and question everything by fusing fantasy and reality or confusing the two. The fusion of fantasy and reality (e.g. Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Moulin Rouge) works on the premise that because a movie cannot possibly be about objective reality (which can’t be known) then the story is really about the story. The confusion of the two (e.g. The Matirx, Blade Runner, Fight Club) employ a real / artificial motif correlating to postmodern denial of ultimate reality replaced by social construction. Accordingly, deconstructive techniques such as the nonlinear timelines in Pulp Fiction (even working backwards) are often used in postmodern films. Because of postmodernism’s pervasiveness and undermining of the Gospel, this discussion is one of the most important in the book.

Chapter six covers a lot of ground quickly by addressing five philosophical themes: romanticism, monism, evolution, humanism and Neo-paganism in the movies. Romanticism is characterized in terms of a revolt against the enlightenment and a predecessor to existentialism. Examples of movies espousing a romantic worldview are Titanic, Meet Joe Black, A Time to Kill, and Finding Neverland. Godawa astutely observes that secular romanticism elevates the creation over the creator because it tends to, “to ignore God but maintain transcendence by hijacking the language and concepts of religious faith and substituting creativity and imagination for the deity.”[7] Even so, C.S. Lewis and J.R. Tolkein are examples of Christians who write in the Romantic genre. Second, monism, usually associated with Eastern religion, is the belief that reality is ultimately one. The pantheistic ideal is that all religions are pointing to the same God. Movies that promote monism are Powder, Phenomenon and I Heart Huckabees. Third, evolution, as the overarching creation myth of secular society, features prominently in many movies. Interestingly, the Darwinian worldview often shows up overtly as a “survival of fittest” ethos with no overt reference to natural science. More troublesome are the moral implications as discussed in reference to Kinsey, a film about the infamous sex researcher. Fourth, humanism is defined as an anti-supernatural worldview that “considers redemption to be found in our own humanity through science and human reason.”[8] Fifth, Neopaganism is openly hostile to Christianity as well albeit from a supernatural point of view. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, The Cell and Chocolat are neo-pagan apologetics films. These many examples dispel the notion of mindless entertainment.

Act three is a discussion of spirituality in film. First, various portrayals of Jesus are surveyed and evaluated in terms of coherence to the New Testament. Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ are examples of postmodern deconstructionism. This entails Jesus being reduced to a fallible human and the miraculous explained away as superstition. In this regard, Hollywood’s penchant for Campbell’s mythic Hero archetype is foundational. Accordingly, Godawa charts the movie The Matrix revealing an astonishing degree of similarity to the Gospel narrative. While The Jesus Film and The Passion get high marks, there is an extended discussion of the latter with its scandalous violence and Catholic overtones. Chapter eight explores various ways Christianity is portrayed.

Unfortunately, the liberal postmodern worldview portrays Christians stereotypically as repressed, hypocritical and dangerous. As a virtual apologetic for sin, biblical faith is presented as an antidote to everything fun and life affirming. This very pervasive agenda is displayed in movies like The Cell, Pleasantville, The Mist and Saved! Also, The Da Vinci Code is transparently hostile with its absurd inference to Jesus’ marriage and fathering of children. Similarly, in spite of redeeming qualities, Gladiator can be viewed as pagan apologetics. Nevertheless, there are movies like Les Miserables which display a positive redemptive Christian message. Even Pulp Fiction showcases biblical redemption in the midst of its celebration of underworld depravity. In many films, the concept of fate serves as a God substitute. In the end, Godawa concludes that it is the movies that ignore God as if He didn’t matter that are the most subversive; those that criticize Him, at least acknowledge His relevance. This leads to chapter nine’s discussion of faith.

Godawa briefly reviews the philosophical history leading to the fact / value divide and faith being redefined as a blind leap. Quite a few films promote this false definition of biblical faith but particularly amusing is O Brother, Where Art Thou? where the charge of an existential leap is leveled at the empiricist. Accordingly, the Everett character is portrayed as willfully ignorant concerning the many miracles he experiences to the point of absurdity. In another odd reversal, Contact deconstructs the search for alien life into a faith commitment. Faith in oneself with its theme of the individual against the system is an American favorite. “Faith verse doubt” is another popular plot line. In this category, a film called The Body centers on the alleged discovery of Jesus’ bones by Vatican archeologists with its ensuing cognitive dissonance. Authentic biblical faith defined as “trust based on evidence” rather than “belief without (or in spite of) evidence” is seldom seen in film. A chapter on spiritual warfare concludes act three.

Movies with supernatural themes are very popular and perhaps speak to man’s universal need for transcendence. Godawa takes a few shots at end time’s movies like Left Behind for speculating about current events and prophecy. This seems suggestive of a disdain for futurist dispensationalism telegraphed back in chapter 1 with the inference that the great harlot in Revelation 17 is “most likely Israel.”[9] This exegesis is suspect given that verse 18 seemingly identifies her as Rome, undoubtedly the hands down favorite for “the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth” when John wrote the Apocalypse at the height of the Pax Romana. That aside, movies about exorcism, angels and demons are cogently discussed. One particularly strong criticism is how many films falsely portray Satan as God’s equal ruling as a king in Hell which is more akin to dualistic religions like Zoroastrianism. In truth, Satan is a defeated foe who will be punished in Hell at the return of Christ. Because Hell is offensive to non-believers, various notions of works based salvation, reincarnation and karma dominate the movies. Another keen observation is that even though most of the theology in these kinds of movies is lacking they often do inspire discussion and a curiosity for biblical truth.

The final section, denouement, is a strength of the book that the reader will want to refer back to time and time again as she watches new films with eyes wide open. He recaps and summarizes while reminding us to avoid the extremes of cultural anorexia and gluttony. He encourages viewers to look for the good in movies as well as critiquing them. To that end, he lists some useful questions:

Is this an educational approach to exposing evil? What are the context and consequences of the vice portrayed? Is it dehumanizing or humanizing? Does the movie celebrate evil, or does it ultimately condemn it? Is the sin displayed as an end in itself, or is it a part of the bigger picture that leads to redemption? Does the movie go overboard in detail, or is some detail necessary to emphasize the seriousness of our behavior?[10]

The key is to use discernment while cultivating appreciation for the artistic elements. He cites Paul’s appropriation of pagan philosophers in his Areopagus sermon as a model for discussions. Accordingly, movies are a fruitful muse for discussions of spiritual matters with friends and relatives. He suggests three subjects areas: 1) the craft; 2) the story; 3) the worldview. A winsome and tactful approach to discussing films can lead to successful evangelism.

This review offered a summary and analysis of Hollywood Worldviews by Brian Godawa. In making a summary, the paper sought to illustrate the value of the book by discussing how the author explains the craft, the story and the worldview of various films. The author took great care to explain difficult philosophical and literary concepts in accessible language. The relationship between these points was shown. In the end, it seems that these points support the idea that culturally literate believers should make time to read this book.


[1] Brian Godawa, Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom & Discernment. Kindle Edition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), Kindle Location 102.

[2] Godawa, Hollywood, Kindle Locations 118-119.

[3] Godawa, Hollywood, Kindle Locations 403-404.

[4] Godawa, Hollywood, Kindle Locations 657-658.

[5] Godawa, Hollywood, Kindle Location 154.

[6] Godawa, Hollywood, Kindle Locations 940-941.

[7] Godawa, Hollywood, Kindle Locations 1638-1639.

[8] Godawa, Hollywood, Kindle Locations 1785-1786.

[9] Godawa, Hollywood, Kindle Locations 391-392.

[10] Godawa, Hollywood, Kindle Locations 2818-2821.