You are here: Home / Apologetics

Billy Graham’s Legacy of Political Idolatry

10/18/2012 58 Comments


By Cris Putnam
It pains me to write this but I have lost all respect for Billy Graham and his organization. Just as I Am: the Autobiography of Billy Graham begins intriguingly framing Billy’s career between two US Presidents: Truman in 1950 at the dawn of the Korean War and President Bush forty two years later with the North Korean nuclear issue. From the heights of international intrigue and diplomacy, the reader is plunged to a rural dairy farm outside of Charlotte, NC where Billy grew up and experienced conversion during the altar call of Mordecai Fowler Ham.[1] After his meteoric rise, Graham had the ear of every President from Truman to Bush Jr.

Transparently, he admits he was a naïve star-struck country boy. Accordingly, Graham usually assumed the best about politicians and it is clear that they used him for political expediency. For instance, John F. Kennedy took him golfing and then unexpectedly thrust him into a press conference ill-prepared. At the time there was a lot of tension surrounding Kennedy’s Catholicism. Graham recalls, “Though Mr. Kennedy was using me for his own purposes, I didn’t mind speaking out.”[2] While the issue of a Catholic president had significance, later developments are more troubling. Graham maintained a close friendship with Lyndon B. Johnson of whom history reveals had a questionable agenda. Johnson’s premise for the Vietnam War, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, has been discredited by a NSA study declassified in 2005 revealing it was a manufactured to justify US intervention.[3] We entered that war based on a known lie from our President. How many were killed and maimed? Graham was also very close to Richard Nixon whom he defended during the Watergate investigation. Later, when the tapes went public, Graham writes he was shocked by the deviousness and foul language. Yet, Graham himself was caught as well. He writes, “I felt physically sick, and went into seclusion…”[4] Even so, Graham later encouraged Gerald Ford to pardon Nixon,[5] a decision which is still very controversial. In the end, he laments,

“If I had it to do over again, I would also avoid any semblance of involvement in partisan politics.”[6]

That statement earned my respect when I first read it and you are left with the impression he learned his lesson. Unfortunately, he did not and my respect has gone the way of The Billy Graham Evangelism Association’s integrity. It’s gone.

If anything he has stooped to a new low. Graham has not only given a tacit endorsement to a Mormon Bishop Mitt Romney, he prayed with him and did not utter a word against Mormonism. It is not at all clear to me that Romney has any genuine convictions on abortion or same sex marriage. His alleged positions seem to be nothing more than expediency given his record. Nevertheless, in light of the pluralism of our culture and the LDS propaganda which promotes the lie that they are merely a different “Christian” denomination, this is unconscionable. Now the media has uncovered that The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has scrubbed their website of all references to Mormonism as a non-Christian cult. This is the worst kind of revisionist political expediency.

The Graham association has defended its actions saying they did not want to divert the political discussion with theological debate. Ken Barun, BGEA chief of staff, told CNN, “We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign.”[7] In doing so, they have made their priorities clear. Unfortunately, for all intents and purposes, they have admitted that politics takes precedence over theological truth. Truly, they are no longer a ministry and their 501C status should be revoked. It seems crystal clear that political conservatism is an idol for many American evangelicals and the Billy Graham organization brazenly promotes this idolatry. It is spiritual whoredom. What happened to epiphany in Just as I Am Billy?
 
 
Also see A Wideness in God’s Mercy? for John MacArthur’s rebuke of Graham’s inclusivist soteriology.
 
In case you are wondering, my personal views are expressed very well by Judge Napolitano, I view partisan politics as the bread and circuses of the new millennium.

As of today, I am convinced that partisan politics is nothing but idolatry.


[1] Billy Graham, Just as I Am: the Autobiography of Billy Graham (NY: HarperOne, 1997) 29.

[2] Ibid, 396.

[3] Robert J. Hanyok, “Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2-4 August 1964”, Cryptologic Quarterly 20, 1 (Spring 2001): 175.

[4] Graham, Just, 457.

[5] Ibid, 468.

[6] Ibid, 724.

[7] http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/16/billy-grahams-group-removes-mormon-cult-reference-from-website-after-romney-meeting/comment-page-2/

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Idolatry, Politics

Ancient Aliens Debunked

10/03/2012 2 Comments

My friend Chris White continues to refine the genre of debunkumentary and has taken his video production to a new level with the exciting new release of Ancient Aliens Debunked. Also, Chris has gone the extra mile and provided detailed transcripts and documentation on this website: http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/ I fully expect a disingenuous DMCA claim from the History Channel will come in short order and block the You Tube version, so keep in mind the video is a free download on Chris’ site.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Ancient Astronaut Theory

A Nephilim Messiah in a Rabbinic Commentary?

10/01/2012 5 Comments

By Cris Putnam
I was recently sent a link to this article from The Jewish Daily Forward’s website by an anonymous author, Philologos, who imagines (mystical music begins) the existence of an esoteric Rabbinic tradition for a nephilim messiah. He bases this wild conjecture on an actual rabbinic commentary. Here it is in English from a reputable source:

Amos 9:11.

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 96b–97a.

… R. Nahum said to R. Isaac: ‘Have you heard when Bar Nafle will come?’ ‘Who is Bar Nafle?’ he asked, ‘Messiah,’ he answered, ‘Do you call Messiah Bar Nafle?’—‘Even so,’ he rejoined, ‘as it is written, In that day I will raise up [97a] the tabernacle of David ha-nofeleth [that is fallen].’ He replied, ’ Thus hath R. Johanan said: In the generation when the son of David [i.e., Messiah] will come, scholars will be few in number, and so for the rest, their eyes will fail through sorrow and grief. Multitudes of trouble and evil decrees will be promulgated anew, each new evil coming with haste before the other has ended.[i]

It is also on the web here.  Notice that in the version of the above posted in the linked article Philologos is presupposing his conclusion by adding this so-called translation: “Bar-Niflei [‘the son of the Nephilim’]” surreptitiously:

“Rabbi Nachman [a fourth-century C.E. sage] asked Rabbi Yitzchak: ‘Do you know when Bar-Niflei [‘the son of the Nephilim’] will come?’ He [Yitzchak] answered: ‘Who is Bar-Niflei?’ He [Nachman] said: ‘The Messiah.’ [Yitzchak said]: ‘You call the Messiah Bar-Niflei?’ He [Nachman] replied, ‘Yes, because it’s written [in Amos], On that day I will raise up the sukkah of David that has fallen [ha-nofelet].’”[ii]

The connection to the word “nephilim” is purely the web author’s idea, not the Rabbinic commentary’s:

There is a pun here on nofelet, “fallen,” and nefilim or (as it is more commonly spelled in English) nephilim, the legendary celestial creatures described by the book of Genesis as descending to earth in the generations before the Flood and begetting offspring with humankind.[iii]

There are two glaring problems in this assertion. First, it is not at all clear the Rabbis were making a pun between the word “fallen” and the “nephilim.” This is a real Rabbinic commentary on Amos 9:11 a passage in which the context is “the fallen booth of David” and the restoration of Israel. James associates it with Christ and the church in Acts 15:16. The Hebrew word for fallen is very common:

1392     נָפַל (nāpal) I, fall, lie, be cast down, fail.

Derivatives

1392a     נֵפֶל (nēpel) untimely birth, abortion (Job 3:16; Eccl 6:3).

1392b     מַפָּל (mappāl) refuse.

1392c     מַפָּלָה (mappālâ) a ruin (Isa 17:1).

1392d     מַפֵּלָה (mappēlâ) a ruin (Isa 23:13; 25:2),

1392e     מַפֶּלֶת (mappelet) a carcass (Jud 14:8), ruin (Ezk 31:13), overthrow (Ezk 32:10). [iv]

There is no actual connection to the nephilim in the original rabbinic source, that is an imaginative leap by the web author Philiologos based on a very superficial similarity between the Hebrew word for fallen and nephilim.

Both words come from the Hebrew verb nafal, “to fall,” and in both ancient Jewish and Christian sources, the Nephilim are sometimes depicted as fallen angels who rebelled against God and were cast down to earth from heaven.[v]

Actually, he is mistaken on both points. First, in Genesis 6 the nephilim are the offspring not the fallen angels, this is the same error made by Patrick Heron. Second, Hebrew grammarian, Michael Heiser has demonstrated convincingly that the “fallen ones” translation for the term “nephilim” is an error albeit a common one. Because of the ‘i’ vowel it really derives from an Aramaic word, “naphil ” meaning “giants” which is why the LXX and all the ancient sources rendered it “giant.”[vi] (Follow the footnote for the grammatical argument by Dr. Heiser.) Furthermore, the context of Numbers 13:33 clearly supports the “giant” rendering.  Finally, because the word fallen is a very common word as shown above,  it is a fanciful leap to connect an unrelated use of “fallen booth” in Amos 9 to the nephilim. It’s actually silly if you think about it.  Even so, Philologos writes:

This passage is intriguing and mysterious. The appellation Bar-Niflei was obviously not a common one for the Messiah, not only because it occurs nowhere else in early rabbinic literature, but also because Rabbi Yitzchak has never encountered it and is surprised, perhaps even shocked, to hear it used that way. Perceiving his reaction, Rabbi Nachman seeks to extricate himself by explaining that it is a reference to the verse in Amos — an explanation that is hardly tenable on either grammatical or contextual grounds. It is clearly a hasty improvisation on his part.[vii]

The above is rank speculation by the web author Philologos. Then he makes a leap to an imaginary esoteric tradition which has no support other than his own imagination:

The conclusion would seem to be that Rabbi Nachman was privy to an esoteric tradition about the Messiah’s descent from the Nephilim that, upon becoming aware of Rabbi Yitchak’s ignorance of it, he did not wish to share with him. But what could this tradition have been? The Nephilim are not positive figures in rabbinic lore; on the contrary, they are described there as outcasts from God’s presence who sowed corruption on earth. Is the Messiah, like Aaron Corbett, one of their latter-day descendants who, gifted with their more-than-human powers, becomes a force for good? Could there have been a connection between such a belief and the Christian doctrine of the Messiah’s divine paternity? We are left knowing no more than Rabbi Yitzchak. We don’t even know whether or not he was taken in by Rabbi Nachman’s sukkah.[viii]

This is why the term ‘nonsequitur’ was invented. It really would only vaguely “seem to be” if we accepted his connection between the very common word fallen and nephilim which is grammatically no connection at all. This whimsical stretch is just a leap by the web author. There is not a shred of evidence presented for the “esoteric tradition.” The original Rabbinic commentary is specifically referenced to Amos 9 and it is talking about the fallen booth of David. The nephilim messiah is nephilim nonsense.


Addendum: One possible explanation (bar Nafale = Son of the clouds) was offered by a biblical scholar here.

[i]Tom Huckel, The Rabbinic Messiah (Philadelphia: Hananeel House, 1998), Am 9:11.

[ii] Philologos, “Shelter From the Storm: Familiar Prayer About a Sukkah Has Little To Do With Sukkot” http://forward.com/articles/163435/shelter-from-the-storm/#ixzz284B24Zbk (accessed 10/01/2012).

[iii] Ibid.

[iv]R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 586.

[v] Philologos, “Shelter…”

[vi] Micheal S. Heiser, “The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy,” http://www.michaelsheiser.com/nephilim.pdf (accessed 10/01/2012).

[vii] Philologos, “Shelter…”

[viii] Ibid.

 

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Nephilim

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

09/14/2012 21 Comments

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, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm.

[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, http://www.ladyofallnations.org/dogma.htm.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Marian Apparition, paranormal, Romanism

Book Review Hollywood Worldviews by Brian Godawa

09/01/2012 Leave a Comment


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.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Book Reviews
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »