This movie finally
came around to my little town. Not much left to be said about that
hasn't been said, but I'll try.
Two key scenes
destroy the premise of the movie. One, the victim, the school teacher
(who said something about Jesus in answer to a question while they
were studying King and Ghandi, IN HISTORY CLASS) and her lawyer,
classic public defender guy, realizes that the defense they need is
that Jesus is a historical figure. Two, is the big dramatic close the
lawyer does where he pretends to turn on his client, the school
teacher, and says, “let's convict her”, but points out that would
take anyone's right to talk about religion in any way. He's right of
course, which is why the scenario in the movie would never happen.
Those precedents are already set.
But this movie wants
there to be victims. If this were a documentary, it would get to the
point where the school disciplined the teacher. A group like the ACLU
or FFRF would find out about it. They would write a letter to that
school board telling them she was perfectly within her rights. If the
school board was smart, as has actually happened in the real world,
they would realize their mistake, and the teacher would be back to
work.
But this movie wants
to see hate. It shows a group of angry protestors, yelling at a bunch
of young Christians with signs saying “God's Not Dead”. The signs
of the yellers are obscured, and their words are not heard at all,
just their angry faces, shouting something. The kids hold hands
against this mob. How about a movie where all of those people calm
the fuck down and just talk and hold hands with each other.
One other scene I'll
mention, a less central one. The cool pastor from the first movie
meets up with the kid from Japan who is looking into Christianity,
but has a lot of questions. He asks about the Sermon on the Mount. He
explains how it seems impossible to reconcile it and to apply those
principles in his life and live them every day. The pastor takes a
deep breath, says, “okay”, and sits down with him. The scene
ends. After catching up with other characters, we return to the cool
pastor who is now at the end of his day, tired, and his cool pastor
friend comes by to ask him how he is. He explains how he spent the
day explaining the Bible to this kid.
This is how
Christianity works. We hear a story about someone having questions,
then someone talked to them, then they become Christian. But we never
get to hear the part where Christianity is explained. You have to do
that work on your own. And it didn't work for me. It doesn't work for
a lot of people. It doesn't work for about 80% of the world. Any
time I've asked questions that are too hard, I have been referred to
some other answerer. You eventually get to the top, Augustine,
Aquinas, Van Til, Bolf, Bultmann. I can find short essays on any one
of those that shows where they fail. But Christianity has that part
about not questioning it, so most people don't go looking at all. Or,
I can go to their own words, and I can hear the same impossible logic
that the kid found in the Bible. That's where it always ends. It's
time to move on from movies like this.
The movie shows the
Japanese kid's father disowning him because of his new belief in
Christianity. It uses language about how he would “forsake
everything” for this new god he has found. Some Christian love
that. And that's what I don't get. If you can't explain it, if you
have make up characters that aren't real and say things about
American law that aren't real to make your point, is it something
worth leaving your family for? When they say “forsake everything”,
that includes their own ability to reason, to question, to engage
others in dialog. Why trap yourself in that? How about a trap where
you commit to always leaving open the possibility that you are wrong?
How about trapping yourself into a world where, no matter what, no
matter how crazy someone sounds, you'll listen to them? In a world
like that, you forsake nothing and keep everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment