• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Film
  • DVD
  • Editorial
  • About ScreenFish

ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • Reviews
  • Interviews
  • News
  • OtherFish
  • Podcast
  • Give

Christianity

What Non-Christians Get Right; Suicide Squad; Green Knight; Ted Lasso

August 12, 2021 by Matt Hill Leave a Comment

your-sunday-drive-christian-podcast

Is Christianity “metaphorically true, but literally false?”

In this episode of the Your Sunday Drive podcast, we look at recent critiques of (and hopes for) the faith from non-Christian “new pragmatists” such as Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Tom Holland and Douglas Murray. Along the way we discover some things non-Christians get right, some things they get wrong, and ask how the church can be faithful to its message, but still relevant in a changing culture.

We also chat about our current pop culture faves, including Ted Lasso, The Suicide Squad and The Green Knight. These are all good, btw, and you should watch them all, btw, but for different reasons…..

Come along for Your Sunday Drive – quick conversation about current events, politics, pop culture and more, from the perspective of a couple of guys trying to follow Jesus.

Hosts: Matt Hill and Nate Polzin. Presented by the Church in Drive of Saginaw, MI, as often as possible. Please visit churchindrive.com and facebook.com/thechurchindrive

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: bret weinstein, Christian, christian podcast, Christianity, church, culture, douglas murray, Faith, green knight, Jesus, jordan peterson, pop culture, Suicide Squad, ted lasso, tom holland

Everything is Spiritual: 1on1 with Pete Docter and Dana Murray (SOUL)

January 3, 2021 by Steve Norton Leave a Comment

When you write about the afterlife, you’re definitely wading into dangerous waters.

Produced by Dana Murray and directed by Pete Docter, Soul tells the story of Joe Gardner (Jamie Foxx), a middle-school band teacher who yearns for something more. Passionate about jazz music, Gardner wants to be on stage yet he feels stuck. After his sudden death, Joe meets 22 (Tina Fey), a soul who has yet to begin her life on Earth and seems unable to find her ‘spark’. Together, the two fight to help Joe reclaim his live while also helping 22 to discover why life is worth living in the first place. 

Known for writing some of Pixar’s ‘headiest’ work (pun intended) such as Inside Out, Up and Monsters Inc., Pete Docter is certainly no stranger to the obscure. However, even for Docter, Soul’s interest in the afterlife provides one of the more complex conceptions ever dealt with by the company.

As they began to develop their visual representation of the Great Beyond, Docter understandably found the task to be an incredible challenge for himself and his team.

 “The afterlife was especially like danger, danger, danger,” he remembers. “There’s a lot of pitfalls and things that we could have stuck our foot in by accident… I think one of the first things we did was talk to a lot of different religious consultants like pastors, theologians, rabbis [and] shaman. We tried to understand from every angle how people across time have understood the soul. What does it look like? Are there any clues to us in terms of the design that we can use? We actually ended up staying away from the afterlife. There’s of course, the sort of cliché of going towards the bright light that we did.” 

“There was an early script where I actually wrote in the voice of God. I was thinking [that] if we’re talking about ‘Why am I here? Why am I not getting what I want?’, then it’s sort of a Job-like story. And I thought it’d be fun to have never referred to him or her. In fact, I thought it was horribly clever that every line would be spoken by someone else. So, it would be a woman, a kid, all ethnicities and races. But that was one of the first things to cut and probably good because the characters—like us—have to figure things out themselves, as opposed to be told.”

Of course, any conversation surrounding the afterlife leads to discussions about the nature of faith. Despite its exploration of the hereafter, Docter feels that Soul’s system of belief echoes more of the classic philosophers than it does theologians.

“I feel like obviously, beyond Christianity, I think a major goal of any faith is to try to bring sense for people in their lives,” contends Docter. “The idea of how do I know what I’m supposed to do. Am I making the right decisions? All those things are complicated and it’s super helpful to have help along the way. I actually feel like it’s maybe more of a philosophical film than a theological one. Essentialism, the idea that I was born to do this, [is] straight out of Aristotle or Plato. Then, we get to counter with the humor of 22 is for nihilism, the sort of ultimate meaninglessness of it all.

“I think where we come to in the end is existentialism, like a Soren Kierkegaard kind of thing of, ‘Hey, it’s not just meant to be localized over here and then the rest of my life happens.’ All of life is spiritual. Everything you do contributes to who you are as a person and so, the overall meaning of your life. I still struggle with that daily but I feel like having the chance to work on this film was a great reminder daily of how I can be bringing my full self into everything, being more present and… really trying to be. It’s tough because you have to balance that with [the fact that] the movie has to get done. I can’t stand here and talk about philosophy all day but it has made me more grateful and appreciative and desiring [to] practice that. Because… it’s not a personality attribute. It’s not something you’re given. You have to exercise every day, at least in my case.”

“I think, to me, faith and fate are really interconnected,” adds producer Dana Murray. “This year, especially, you just have to [realize that] I’m not in charge. I have to go and trust that my faith and fate that it’ll all work out. That’s threaded into the film, but also just timely of when it’s coming out, trusting in that.” 

One of the most unique aspects of the film is its presentment of Black culture. As the first depiction of an African-American lead character within Pixar’s canon, Joe Gardner was an exciting prospect for the company. Understanding that any portrayal of race deserved to be handled with the utmost care and sensitivity, Murray ensured that as many voices as possible were consulted so that Soul could visually provide the most authentic representation possible.

“We took it on as a huge responsibility to portray Joe and the rest of the cast [as] truthful and authentic,” she explains. “I think that 22 walking in Joe’s shoes is really special because we got to go into these Black spaces, like the barbershop and the tailor shop with Joe’s mom. I think that Joe is going through something that’s very universal and something that I think all of us, if we haven’t felt in our life, probably will at some point. I think he’s a character that so many people can connect to. Culturally, we wanted to make the black community proud. So, we brought on a lot of help. We had a ton of consultants and a culture trust and [then, there’s] our co-director and writer Kemp Power. All these voices were such a huge part in making these characters who they were. It was very important to us to portray them in a truthful way.”

“In fact, we, I think our initial concern was about religion,” Docter responds. “The longer term and the bigger concern became more about race and representing culture because there are a lot of pitfalls and things that we didn’t even know [that] we didn’t know. So, [there was] long learning there [for us[.”

Having said this, Docter recognizes that it was never the original intent for Soul to specifically depict Black culture in its story-telling. Even so, once that came into view, he also believes that it created incredible opportunities for learning that made the film’s development a richer experience for everyone involved.

“We didn’t set out to make the first African-American character,” Docter recalls. “It was really out of the decision that this guy who kind of reflects the artist’s journey should be a jazz musician and one of our consultants said, ‘Oh, jazz, you could more accurately call black improvisational music. It grew out of the African-American culture.‘ And we thought, it’s only right then to have our main character reflect that. As soon as we made that decision, I don’t think I knew how little I didn’t know. There was a lot that we needed help with. And [co-director] Kemp Powers, as Dana mentioned, was formative in bringing a lot of those details. But we also had extensive cultural consultants as well. People talking just about the black experience. People talking about music. We got to meet and work with Herbie Hancock and Quincy Jones, [who are] these living legends, which was just fascinating and mind blowing. It was a huge responsibility that we knew that we wanted to portray this life of this man as accurately as we could, not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because the movie gets better when you talk about those things in an accurate, specific way. Strangely, I think it becomes more universal the more specific it is. So, we had a lot of the benefit of a lot of really great people that helped us. It was a great learning experience.” 

Speaking of 2020, because the film features characters in ‘holding patterns’ with their lives, there’s also an aspect of Soul that connects with the current pandemic. Although the film went into production years ago, Docter also feels like the story resonates in new ways in light of today’s circumstances.

“I think it sort of turned out that way,” reflects Docter. “We started at five years ago and the world was a different place, but a lot of the things that we were investigating, like basically why are we waking up in the morning? What are we doing with our time? Those, I think, are things that we’re maybe asking ourselves more now than we do in normal times. Maybe that’s not always good. I think there’s some value to asking those questions. That was our hope really from the get-go… It’s not like we ever hoped to answer the question of what is life all about. That’s ridiculous to think that you could but, at the very least, we hoped that we would incite some good conversations and make people say, ‘Okay, we got to go get some coffee and talk about this’. (Or, now sit on zoom, I guess, and talk about it.)”

In addition, another fascinating theme embedded within the film is it’s conversation surrounding what it means to know one’s calling. Unlike other Disney projects that encourage you to ‘follow your dreams’, Soul takes a more grounded approach to the idea. In fact, Docter’s script even suggests that over-emphasizing the importance of our ‘dreams’ may be limiting to our ‘spark’.

“That was one of the great joys that came with [it],” he beams. “I think there is, oftentimes, a narrative [of] ‘find what you love, do it, and you’ll never work a day in your life.’ That’ll lead to happiness and fulfillment. Well, no, it doesn’t work like that. There are times of intense joy and fulfillment, but it’s not the answer to everything. So, it was really exciting as a storyteller because I think everybody believes so strongly in that narrative that, when we don’t give Joe the happiness and fulfillment that he was expecting, it’s kind of shocking to people. I don’t know that we really ever pulled this off but the hope was that the word ‘spark’ would be reversed in a way. At the beginning, Joe assumes, like hopefully the audience, that [his] spark is the thing you love and your passion, like music or a science, or whatever those specific things [are]. But, in the end, spark really means life. You know that your job is not to just do this one thing, but your job is to live in all the complexity and nuance that that entails. So, I hope that came across, but that was the intention.”

Since 1995’s release of Toy Story, Pixar has continuously offered though-provoking projects that excite the minds of people the world over. Asked what it is that he finds so stirring about these films, Docter highlights the unexpected impact that these stories have on the audience.

“I guess it’s just wanting to reflect reality or my experience of it,” Docter explains. “When I started in animation, it was all about the joy that I got out of it. Now, I realize that one of the great joys of it is the ability for Dana and I and the rest of our crew to connect with people we will never meet in parts of the world that we will never go. Through the work that we do, we have this amazing ability to connect people. I think animation has a wonderful ability (and I guess, filmmaking and storytelling in general) to allow the viewers to step into somebody else’s shoes and experience life from a perspective that they have not been in themselves. So, those are the most important things for me is just representing the world as it sort of seems to me and that I’m struggling with in hopes that you will see yourself in there as well.”

“Sometimes we don’t even know [the impact it will have],” echoes Murray. “I remember, after Inside Out, getting letters and stories from people like psychologists who are working with traumatized children. The only way these children could express themselves is by using the dolls or stuffies, like the characters of all the emotions. That was kind of like crazy to hear because you just you don’t know how these are going to impact people until afterwards. While you’re making them, you’re so focused and busy doing it that it’s not until later sometimes that you can take it in.” 

Despite the film’s difficult topics such as the afterlife, Murray explains that she has been thrilled with the types of questions that Soul inspires within her own young children.

“We both have kids. Mine are younger, Pete’s are kind of young adults now,” Murray points out. “So, my kids just saw the film and I think the conversations that I hope are happening are happening. I think the things that they really connect [with] are discovering this great before, because it’s really interesting. We all like to kind of think about where we came from and where we got our personalities. So, that’s been a huge topic. Then, also the things like their spark. They’re trying to figure out what are the things that I really love doing? What am I interested in? They’ve [also] really leaned into the music, which is really cool, [especially] the jazz music and the Trent and Atticus score. But they’re not asking about the midlife crisis. So, we’re definitely having the conversations that I hoped we would be having. I think kids are really smart and they ask big questions so there’s a lot in there for them.” 

“It’s something that we talked about. Dana and I worried about it but I think that, in a way, doing Inside Out was a kind of boot camp for this movie,” Docter continues. “That was pretty abstract. What we found was, if you make it visual, then everybody gets it. If it’s about words, you’re going to miss some people. But visually and through action, ‘this character wants this but this is in the way’. Now, I can understand everything. That’s takes a long time to do but we have an amazing group of very talented people who assisted us and actually just did all the work. They didn’t assist us or anything. They did the work.” 

With his ability to make even the murkiest of concepts accessible to children and adults, Docter argues that he never begins with any particular audience in mind when he starts to write.

“Kurt Vonnegut said, ‘Pick somebody and write for them.’ That’s not been my experience,” he states. “I guess, at the beginning, I was writing more just for myself. ‘Ooh, what’s fun? What do I want to play with?’ Then, along the way, Dana will say something about her kids [and I decide that] we need to write for her kids. So, it’s almost like building up layers as we go. I want something just selfishly that is going to excite me and connect with other folks that I talk with. But then I’m also knowledgeable that my kids and Dana’s kids and all these different people are going to see it. So, it’s not really a simple answer I guess, but it is almost like switching the channel a couple of times as we go, sometimes even daily, to make sure we’ve got something there for everybody.”

Soul is currently streaming on Disney+.

To hear our conversation with writer/director Pete Docter and producer Dana Murray, click here.

Filed Under: Disney+, Featured, Film, Interviews Tagged With: Christianity, Dana Murray, Disney, Disney+, Faith, Jamie Foxx, Pete Docter, Soul, spirituality, Tina Fey

2020 So Far: Iran, Church Shooting, Star Wars, Golden Globes

January 8, 2020 by Matt Hill Leave a Comment

your sunday drive

Your Sunday Drive Podcast Season 2, Episode 1.

In our first episode of 2020, we briefly refocus the goal of this podcast: seeking ways to approach current culture in a Christian/biblical way. We then ask “what’s happening so far in 2020?,” covering topics from the conflict with Iran and another recent church shooting, to some reflections on Star Wars and the Golden Globes fallout.

Come along for Your Sunday Drive – quick conversation about current events, politics, pop culture and more, from the perspective of a couple of guys trying to follow Jesus.

Hosts: Matt Hill and Nate Polzin. Presented by the Church in Drive of Saginaw, MI, as often as possible. Please visit churchindrive.com and facebook.com/thechurchindrive

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: Bible, christian podcast, Christianity, gervais, Iran, pop culture, shooting, Star Wars, Trump, war

Sorry, Ricky Gervais: Humanity Still Needs a Cure

March 21, 2018 by Matt Hill Leave a Comment

i genuinely dig
Ricky Gervais plenty,
and i’m thankful for
The Office,
like, for sure

i appreciate his
iconoclastic approach
to comedy;
i relate to his atheism,
tho i’m not an atheist myself,
as you’ll gather below

however,
i noticed him make a move
in his recent Netflix comedy special,
Ricky Gervais: Humanity,
that i’d like to call into question,
because it raises a
significant issue
for someone like Gervais

(Ricky, i hope you’ll appreciate this;
you seem to appreciate
close thinking,
or at least attempts at it 🙂 )

last year around this time,
Netflix was
releasing a slew
of comedy specials;
at that time, i posted
“comedy needs Crashing”

in it, i noted:

…a certain “typical”
comedic perspective –
generally hilarious,
of course,
but also
sardonic, cynical,
melancholic and
world-worn and weary,
endlessly observational
when it comes to
finding problems,
but seldom (apparently)
when it comes to
actually addressing them,
actually living with them
in the day-to-day
(other than offering
its own oddly biblical
and plenty true
pseudo-spiritual
prescription of
“just laugh through it”)

i submit that Gervais
affects this perspective
in Ricky Gervais: Humanity
*to the letter,*
almost as if he’d
read what i wrote

he even chooses to
end the special –
having already advertised,
importantly,
his own atheism,
as he’s wont to do –
with his own version
of the prescription:
“just laugh through it”

in other words,
how does Gervais
suggest we approach
(obv universally rough) life
in this Godless universe?

“just laugh through it”

*this* is the move i want to
call into question

first let me say again:
i agree with this suggestion;
it can be, in fact,
found in the Bible
(Proverbs 17:22, e.g.)
and other religious traditions

but here’s the thing:
in the Bible,
such a prescription is
clearly but a palliative –
something to help you through,
but not something
that ultimately cures
any ultimate issue

for,
importantly,
in the Bible,
there is an ultimate issue,
and more importantly,
there is an ultimate cure

and so this is the part where Gervais –
where any atheist –
encounters a problem;
here’s the rub:
either there isn’t really
an ultimate issue to cure,
or there is an ultimate issue,
but no ultimate cure

either the way things are
in this Godless universe
seem wrong –
like something that
could be,
should be “fixed” –
but they’re really not
(because “wrongness”
isn’t really a thing);
or they really are wrong
(whatever that could
even mean sans God),
but there’s nothing
and no one “ultimate” enough
(no God)
to ultimately do
anything about it

to me, tbh,
neither of these
really seems okay

to me, tbh,
neither of these
really seems to
match up with
our experiences, our intuitions,
our wisdom about the world

and so,
to me, tbh,
a palliative like
“laugh through it” –
nice and true
and helpful as it may be –
is just not enough
once we’ve dismissed
the possibility that
something is really wrong
and
something can
really be done about it

in other words,
it’s just not enough,
once we’ve dismissed God

\\\

so…
calling into question complete…
where one goes from here, of course,
is up to that one

thanks for the laughs, Ricky –
humanity is certainly a
fertile topic for it

here’s to hoping for
options kept open 🙂

 

 

Filed Under: Editorial, Reviews, Television Tagged With: analysis, atheism, atheist, Christianity, comedy, God, humanity, Jesus, laughter, Netflix, pop culture, religion, review, Ricky Gervais, special, spiritual, Twitter

Of Course All These Alt-Right Racists Are Wrong, but Why?

August 14, 2017 by Matt Hill 1 Comment

you’re likely upset about
what happened in Charlottesville

maybe you’ve talked about it,
maybe took  some kind of
social media stance,
maybe just sort of saddened inside

it’s probably super obvious to you
that all these alt-right racists are wrong,
that racism is wrong
(“evil” as Trump (finally) put it),
has always been wrong,
that we should do something about it

fair enough,
understandable enough
(of course i agree)

but have you asked yourself
why?
not why you feel as you do,
or why racism seems so clearly wrong,
but actually
why is racism wrong?
what makes it wrong?
put another way,
how do we know it’s wrong or
are we justified in saying it’s wrong?

i mean . . .

is it wrong cuz it seems wrong?
(but unfortunately it doesn’t seem wrong to everyone)

is it wrong cuz everyone agrees it’s wrong?
(but unfortunately they don’t)

is it wrong cuz it’s not “fair?”
(what’s “fair” mean?
who defines it?
who says everything is
or should be “fair?”)

is it wrong cuz you wouldn’t want someone
to be racist to you,
so you shouldn’t be racist to someone else?
(wait, what makes this line of thinking
the line of thinking?
is there some other similar line of thinking
that applies certainly?)

is it wrong cuz humans (or Americans)
all “deserve” “dignity” “equally?”
(again: problems abound)

maybe you think racism is
self-evidently wrong
and that saying so
requires no justification at all
(but is it possible the alt-right racists
feel they’re self-evidently right?

can science prove racism is wrong?
(or could a solely Darwinian/naturalistic understanding
of eugenics in fact be used to support racism?
has it been? is it currently being?)

(we could go on)

what i’m saying is this:
none of these lines of thinking can
truly justify the claim that
racism is wrong;
further,
none of these lines of thinking can
justify the claim that
anything is wrong (or right)
in general

further,
there is but one line of thinking, in fact,
that can truly ground these kinds of moral claims,
and it’s the one where
we know, cuz God;
where things are wrong (or right),
in general,
cuz God

and so, further,
as a consequence,
making moral claims sans God,
ultimately,
is making ungrounded,
unjustified claims

so,
to circle back,
of course all these alt-right racists are wrong,
but why?
why is racism wrong?
what makes it wrong?
what right do we have to feel and think it’s wrong?
what justifies us when we say it’s wrong?
. . .
cuz God says so

(now, exactly how we know he says so,
how and where he does so,
what reason we have for thinking so,
what to do in response,
how to deal with the fact that
we continue to make horrible errors
even given all of this, etc. etc. . . .
those are (excellent) questions
for another time)

[For some awesome unpacking of these ideas that I stumbled upon recently through the Unbelievable? podcast (which you should totally subscribe to), check out “The Most Important Thing This French Atheist Taught Me About Christianity.” 

This article doesn’t necessarily make what’s called “the moral argument for God” – as I have above – but it does specifically look at philosopher (and atheist) Luc Ferry to trace our western ideal of human equality back to Christianity itself. As Ferry puts it:

. . . the Greek world is an aristocratic world, one which rests entirely upon the conviction that there exists a natural hierarchy…of plants, of animals, but also of men: some men are born to command, others to obey, which is why Greek political life accommodates itself easily to the notion of slavery.

In direct contradiction, Christianity was to introduce the notion that humanity was fundamentally identical, that men were equal in dignity – an unprecedented idea at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance.

This [idea of human equality] may seem self-evident, but it was literally unheard-of at the time, and it turned an entire world-order upside down.

Given recent events in our country, it seems like a good time to remember that – just as much racism is culturally inherited – much of our outrage against racism is culturally inherited too, insofar as our culture is still “Christian.” However, we can intentionally choose these values and be justified in doing so, as described above.]

Filed Under: Current Events, Editorial, OtherFish Tagged With: alt right, atheism, Black Lives Matter, charlottesville, Christian, Christianity, current events, God, luc ferry, moral argument, naturalism, protest, racist, response, riot, spiritual, Trump

The Student – Weaponized Christianity

April 23, 2017 by Darrel Manson Leave a Comment

Religion can be a beautiful thing.

It can also be very dangerous.

In The Student, we see how someone can misuse religion in destructive ways. It may be all the harder for some of us to watch because it is Christianity that is made into something ugly.

Venya, a Russian high school student, refuses to take part in a mixed swimming class. He tells his mother it is against his religion. His mother scoffs, but Venya has taken up his own form of Christianity—a very severe reading of scriptures which leads him to become very judgmental towards everyone else. He is becoming more and more disruptive at school. It is not limited to swimming, but also to science courses. His mother wants the school to straighten him out. The principal tries to mediate and compromise (although Venya is uncompromising). A teacher tries to take him on directly, challenging his take on Christianity. Venya even rejects ideas from the priest because he sees the church as hypocritical because of its wealth.

Venya befriends another outsider, not because of an affinity, but because the boy is crippled and fits into a scripture that Venya has read. The other boy has a bit of a crush on Venya and goes along. They plot the demise of the teacher that has tried to out argue Venya.

On the one hand, we can look at Venya and understand that his faith is an aberration. He seems to be self-taught concerning the scriptures. He reads them constantly, but seems to cherry pick the texts he pays attention to. He never seems to understand an overall message to be found in the scriptures. He never sees the love and compassion of God being revealed. But although many of us may see this as a wrong understanding of Christianity, it is by no means an unknown approach. Just as we may be appalled by some fundamentalist views of Islam that lead to terrorism, there are many of the same kinds of views within Christianity that can lead to the kind of behavior that Venya exhibits (which is really its own form of terrorism). Venya uses the Bible and Christianity as a weapon against everyone around him.

Viewers are free to consider the psychological issues at play in Venya that have led him to this point. To be sure, there is an issue for him in how to deal with his awakening sexuality, which is a key part in his refusal to take part in the swimming class. His religion serves as a shield that keeps away the feelings that he is unsure how to deal with. Still, the way he manifests his fears creates suffering in others. His religion is not about reaching out to others but rather he seeks to keep everyone at arm’s length, lest they bring to the surface that which he is burying.

Non-Christians watching this film might well find confirmation of all the things they find wrong with religion. Here is an example of how easy it is for Christianity be go overboard. For Christians, however, there is a challenge to understand how close we may all be to such excesses and to better understand how we need to better portray the side of Christianity that brings light rather than darkness.

Photos courtesy of Under the Milky Way

 

Filed Under: Film, Reviews Tagged With: Christianity, fundamentalism, Russia

How the Shack Wrestles with the Problem of Evil (and You Should, Too)

March 3, 2017 by Jacob Sahms 7 Comments

A decade ago, I read Paul Young’s novel The Shack, and became intrigued by what I might ask God if I were face-to-face with the Almighty Creator of the Universe. If we’re honest with ourselves, seeing loved ones suffer and die is often the greatest challenge to our faith. For Young, the story revolved around a middle-aged father of three, who loses his youngest daughter to murder and finds himself revisiting the crime scene at the invitation of God. While this story was fascinating to me in its exploration of the problem of evil and forgiveness on many levels, I filed it away as something akin to C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia or J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, with less fantasy elements. But I walked away wrestling with how I could better to forgive, and how personal a relationship God longs for with us.

This week, as The Shack hits theaters (thanks to the backing of Lionsgate) and I find myself again standing in the middle of a conversation about Young’s ideas about God. For some, it’s an epic story of incarnational love; for others, it’s an inadequate picture of God that falls into the realm of heresy. And, while I first read the novel at the request of others, I find myself asked personally and professionally to weigh in on what I think about the cinematic version of The Shack.

So I did something I never do: I watched The Shack twice in three days, taking deliberate notes and mulling over the theology that the film proposes. (My initial review is here at ChristianCinema.com.) Here is my humble ‘take’ on the film for those who question its worth and for those seeking a pastoral, theological take. A disclaimer: this should be considered to contain spoilers about the plot of the film. I encourage you to see the movie (and/or read the novel) first.

The Introduction to the Story of Mack Phillips

Creatively rendered, the film starts with Willie (Tim McGraw) narrating the early childhood of Mack Phillips (Sam Worthington as an adult). We see that Mack’s father is an elder in his local church, but he’s also an alcoholic who is abusive to both Mack and his mother. Setting the stage for a later visual depiction of God as a large African American woman, Mack’s only ‘advocate’ in the early stages is a neighbor (played by Octavia Spencer, who also plays ‘Papa’) who shows him love, tells him to talk to God who is “always listening,” and comforts him by saying, “Daddy’s aren’t supposed to do that to their kids; it ain’t love.” This humble, patient faith is showed in opposition to Mack’s father, who beats his son outside while a storm rages, forcing him to repeat Colossians 3:20 (“Obey your parents in everything so that it pleases the Lord“) while his mother looks on.

As Mack loads his father’s alcohol with rat poison, penning a note asking that one day he be forgiven, Willie’s voice-over says, “Pain has a way of twisting us up inside and making us do the unthinkable. The secrets we keep have a way of clawing their way to the surface.” Ironically, this is an important plot point that I didn’t remember as I watched the film – and which I know many don’t recall in examining the story later.  Still, it’s an important idea to the main thrust of the film in that it set the stage for a lifetime of guilt and sadness over the way a worldview has been determined by Mack’s abusive father and the actions Mack takes to set that world right.

Fast-forward thirty years, and we find Mack on a camping trip with his children. We’re told that Mack’s wife knows God and calls him Papa; Mack relates better to an understanding of God reflected in the stain-glassed window depicting an old man with a big white beard. And then the Great Sadness falls on Mack’s family, as his daughter is kidnapped (and presumed murdered) by a serial killer. We don’t see Mack’s whole life fall apart, but we know he becomes partially estranged from his wife and kids before God sends him a note, inviting him to the place where his daughter Missy was killed.

Dealing with the Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Pain

In the shack, Mack meets Papa (Octavia Spenser), Jesus (Aviv Alush), and Sarayu (Sumire). Over the course of the next few days, Mack interacts with the three persons of the Trinity together and separately, each member of the Trinity conversing with Mack about the same thing but in different ways. All of them recognize that he is deeply wounded by the loss of his daughter; all of them recognize that he blames God for her murder. With that in mind, consider the conversations below – and recognize that cinematically, they are displayed against the movement of Mack’s exploration of the shack (especially the kitchen where Papa cooks), the lake where Jesus’ fishes and woodworks, and Sarayu’s garden.

The first remarkable comments occur when Mack and Papa bake together, as we might imagine that little Mack baked with the neighbor who taught him the goodness of God.

Mack: You’re wearing a dress. I always pictured you with a white beard.

Papa: I think that’s Santa. After what you’ve been through, I didn’t think you could handle a father right now.

Right away, the issues for some are raised because we’re addressing that God the Father appears as a woman. (Never mind that he will later appear as a Native American man!) For some, the endangerment to their understanding of God’s gender is problematic, and the rest of the film/novel is lost to them. [Please don’t be one of those people!] Instead of dwelling on the depiction of God the Father on screen – which doesn’t seem any less creative than the Sunday School posters we have hanging around our churches of Jesus as an Anglo-Saxon man – let’s focus on what comes next, as Mack and Papa discuss the problem of evil.

Papa: You may not believe it but I am especially fond of you. I want to heal that wound that has grown inside of you that is between us. There are no easy answers that will take your pain away. Life takes a bit of time and a lot of relationships.

Mack: You’re the almighty God, right? You know everything. You’re everywhere at once. You have limitless power. Yet, somehow, you let my little girl die when she needed you most. You abandoned her.

Papa: I never left her.

Suddenly, any misconceptions anyone had about the sheer ‘entertainment value’ of the film have been cleared up, right? But this isn’t a pop culture take on Trinitarian values and the problem of evil, there’s some thought out progression as it continues.

Mack: If you are who you say you are, where were you when I needed you?

Papa: When all you see is your pain, you lose sight of me.

Mack: Stop talking in riddles. How can you say you’ll help me when you couldn’t help her.

Papa: The truth sets everyone free. Truth has a name and he’s over in his woodshed right now covered in sawdust.

Mack: You left him too. Seems like you have a track record, turning your back on those you supposedly love. He said, My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?

Papa: You misunderstand the mystery [Papa shows Mack the nail mark in her/his wrist]. Don’t ever think that what my son chose to do didn’t cost us both differently. Love always leaves a mark. We were there together. I never left him, I never left you, I never left Missy.

The flashing lights and sirens you see and hear are the sounds of critics screaming that this is a brand new case of modalism (or Patripassianism if they can pronounce it). Modalism says that the three members of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) aren’t really different persons but rather three different perceptions an individual has of God and there are no substantial differentiations one can make of the three. This is because of the mark God the Father/Papa has on one wrist – failing to recognize the differences between the persons Young and the film’s screenwriters present the Trinity with. They couldn’t be more individual if they tried!

What one might instead see is that the Father’s empathy – an aspect the film is carefully trying to boldly proclaim – is strong and that sending Jesus to die on the cross was not done lightly or without cost to Him. This further accents the efforts Papa makes to help Mack understand how Papa feels the pain of losing Missy. Rather than causing me consternation theologically, I hear echoes of the popular poem “Footprints in the Sand” where the author clearly goes out of her way to show how God is with us even when we can’t see it. Again, the script isn’t focused on explaining the mystery of the Trinity three-in-one but in showing us how God worked to “crawl into life” (an explanation from the book, or the Incarnation!) with us.

At this point in the film, Mack isn’t ready to accept or acknowledge what Papa is trying to communicate because his pain is still unresolved, understandably. But he joins the Trinity for dinner. There, he sees the way that the Trinity longs to be in conversation, and he recognizes that he is in community.

Investigating Sin and God’s Wrath

Mack asks Papa, “Is there anyone you’re not especially fond of?” and suddenly the two are knee-deep in a conversation about the “Old Testament God” that Mack is still wrapped around. Rather than trying extricate the two, the dialogue picks up where the dough-threading conversation left off: Papa doesn’t need to stress punishment when he’s still trying to explain grace.

Papa admits that he gets angry with his children (“because what parent doesn’t”) but downplays wrath. Instead, he sounds a lot like Romans 6:23 (“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”) when Papa says, “I don’t need to punish people. Sin is its own punishment. I’m in the middle of everything you see to be amiss, working for your good. That’s what I do.” [We just heard Romans 8:28, too, didn’t we? “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”) Later on in the film, Papa will tell Mack that “no one gets away with anything,” answering another criticism – that The Shack doesn’t deal with sin in a traditional way, or allow for punishment for sin.

And then we get this gem from Papa in response to Mack’s claims that Papa can’t be working good while allowing suffering to occur, “You’re trying to make sense of your world based on a very incomplete picture. The real underlying flaw in your life is that you don’t think I’m good. I am, and if you knew me and how much I love you, even when you don’t understand, you would know that I’m at work in your life for your good, and you’d trust me.” But Mack’s response is straight pain: “My daughter’s dead. There’s nothing that you can say that will ever justify what happened to her.”

For someone who interacts with people wrestling with their grief, pain, shame, and anger on nearly a daily basis, I can assure you that their struggle is greater in dealing with the problem of evil and God’s grace than Patripassianism…

The Spirit Interlude

Immediately after this exchange, Sarayu leads Mack into her garden, showing that she’s connected with Papa but approaching Mack’s distrust from a different perspective: “Just to be clear, we’re not justifying anything, we’re trying to heal it.” She explains how some of the the things growing in the garden are harmful but balanced with something else growing in the garden, they provide healing. While we’re not shown a glorious metaphorical apple, we might hear inklings of Genesis 2:15-17: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Not everything in the Garden is for Mack, but everything in the Garden has a purpose (or, some might say, is good).

Sarayu debates Mack over what “good” is – he’s very practical about his approach but not very nuanced. Sarayu tells Mack that his approach is many more people than he ever imagined. Sarayu pushes back, “So pretty much you’re the judge? Have you ever been wrong or changed your opinion over time? There are billions like you, [clashing and warring] determining what is good and evil because all insist on playing God. You weren’t meant to do that on your own. This was always meant to be a conversation between friends.” Sarayu’s ‘take’ is less aggressive but more soulful, more spiritual – not unintentionally. But then we get the follow-up to a discussion Mack had previously begun with Jesus.

Jesus & the Rowboat

Earlier that day – although time is fairly obtuse on screen – Mack and Jesus spend some time together near the lake. In one of the more informative dialogues, Mack admits he’s more comfortable with Jesus than the other two members of the Trinity even as he’s growing to realize they’re all connected. Jesus’ response: “I’m the best way to relate to Papa and Sarayu. When you see me, you see them. Sarayu is creativity, the breath of life, my Spirit. We want to be in relationship with you. You are in the center of our love and purpose.” He goes on to tell Mack that he wants everyone to have a relationship with Papa, that it’s his purpose to point toward Papa.

Later, as we revisit images that one can find in Matthew 14, as Peter tries to extend his faith in a physical way, Mack flees a sinking rowboat into the hands of Jesus, who tells him, “Trust me, none of this can hurt you. Keep your eyes on me.” Interspersed with powerful visuals involving walking (or running) on water, the two discuss how Jesus isn’t concerned with rules, working on being a good Christian, or religion. This is the ultimate debate not everyone will like because it’s the debate religious leaders haven’t liked since the time Jesus showed up teaching in the synagogue. It’s the argument Jesus presented for his gospel in John 3, about being born again and accepting God’s love for the world instead of focusing on law-following and sin-counting.

The Cave of Wisdom

Then the film gets really interesting, as Mack explores Young’s version of the Cave of Evil from Dagoba in The Empire Strikes Back. Instead of encountering some twisted version of himself, Mack meets Sophia, or Wisdom, personified. Sophia tells him that the day is full of serious consequences involving judgment; she accuses him of believing that God isn’t good.

Sophia: Today, you are the judge. Why are you surprised? You’ve spent your whole life judging everyone and everything, their actions and motivations, like you could really know them. You make snap judgments about them, from the color of their skin, their clothes, their body language. By all accounts, you are well-practiced expert. [Sophia then lists several types of people (murderers, drug dealers, terrorists, abusive spouses, etc.) and asks if they deserve hell.] What about the man who preys on innocent little girls? Is that man guilty? What about his father who twisted him? Doesn’t the legacy of brokenness go the whole way back to Adam? And what about God? Isn’t he at fault? He set this all in motion, especially if he knew the outcome?

Mack: Do you want me to say it? Absolutely. God is to blame.

Sophia: If it’s so easy for you to judge God, you must choose one of your children to spend eternity in heaven. The other will go to hell. I am only asking you to do something you believe God does.

Mack: It isn’t fair. I can’t. Take me. I’ll go instead of them. I’ll take their place. You take me. You leave my kids alone and you take me.

Sophia: Mackenzie, you’ve judged your children worthy of love even if it costs you everything. Now you know Papa’s heart.

Mack: I don’t understand how God could have loved Missy and put her through so much horror. She was innocent. Did he use her to punish me, because that’s not fair. She didn’t deserve it. Now I might, because…

Sophia: Is that how your God is? God’s not like that. This was not God’s doing. He doesn’t stop a lot of things that cause him pain. What happened to Missy was the work of evil and no one in your world is immune from it. You want the promise of a pain-free life. There isn’t one. As long as there’s free will … evil can find a way in.

Mack: There’s got to be a better way.

Sophia: There is, but the better way involves trust.

At this point in the film, as a father and a pastor, I am completely stunned. (Remember, it’s been a decade since I read the dialogue in the novel.) We humans spend the majority of our day judging others, from what they wear, to how they talk, to who they marry, to what they believe. And in this interplay between Sophia and Mack, all of our judgments of others are laid bare. Again, The Shack puts free will and the problem of evil at front and center of a fictional story, which in my mind, is a genius move blending fiction with the inner wrestling of the soul.

I could go on, and ruin the final fourth of the film. But I won’t do that. I will point out that the production team behind the film chose to focus on the theological change that takes place in the heart of Mack versus the blockbuster ending that wraps up the story of Missy’s killer in the book. But they are all plot points along Mack’s journey, not theological explorations that demand our attention if we’re going to “get” The Shack.

So What’s the Point?

The Shack has its root in Paul Young’s experience of abuse within a religious culture, and his wife’s recognition that writing down his story in fictional form would provide a powerful catharsis for Young and those who would read it. Ultimately, this is about recognizing the beauty and power of God even in the midst of our suffering, and about what forgiveness looks like when we extend it to ourselves. That’s the point of The Shack.

While we struggle with what it means to be human, and what it means for God to be omniscient, omnipotent, omni – everything and for us to have free will, The Shack shows up creatively and asks us to consider all of those ideas in the form of an Everyman. With the Everyman character in Mack, we’re able to see sin play out in his personal decisions and in what’s happened to him, and the way that God’s grace is absolutely overwhelming. It’s a parable, a fable, a metaphor for God’s unrelenting heart.

But if I’m going to push this point further, about what we can learn from The Shack and other narratives like it, it’s this: we must be aware that God’s grace and providence will strip our understanding of what God is in the world. If we are inclined to believing that we’re supposed to be seeking discussions that point people toward God, then The Shack is a decent place to start – especially if the person has questions about suffering, evil, pain, sin, forgiveness… Or to put it another way, John Wesley urged his hearers to “plunder the Egyptians,” and make use of any means possible to promote the gospel!

While critics have proposed The Shack lacks is a complete understanding of the Trinity or of salvation, they fail to understand the historical record of the Gospels (not to mention Jesus’ tangle with the Pharisees). Jesus forgave sins even if the person didn’t confess their sins (Luke 5:17-39), and healed without an acknowledgment of his Godhead (John 5:1-11); he told a story about God as a woman searching her house for a lost coin (Luke 15:8-10). Somehow, the power of the gospel exhibited in Jesus’ life exceeded a protracted dialogue about how the Trinity worked, or how repentance and atonement should be extricated from the story. It’s what made him butt heads with the Pharisees who wanted to say that they had a limited/exclusive take on how God worked! And yet, seeing the big picture through the lens of the cross, we can appreciate the power of God’s movement in each of those stories, and other incomplete/inadequate stories that still reflect the gospel’s light.

I’d propose we allow the same for The Shack. With discernment and grace, we might learn something about ourselves through the wonderful providence of God’s inspiration.

Filed Under: Current Events, Editorial, Featured, Film Tagged With: Christianity, CS Lewis, Faith, forgiveness, God, Jesus, Jesus Christ, JRR Tolkien, Octavia Spencer, parable, Paul Young, Sam Worthington, sin, suffering, The Shack

3.10 The Sound of SILENCE

January 23, 2017 by Steve Norton Leave a Comment

http://screenfish.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/3.10-Silence.mp3

This week, Steve welcomes Peter ‘the Bearded Movie Guy’ Percival and Patrick ‘with the good beard’ Erskine to wrestle with one of director Martin Scorcese’s most nuanced works, SILENCE.  Does God speak in the silence of our suffering?  How does faith interact with action?  All this and more, only on ScreenFish.

Want to continue to conversation at home?  Click the link below to download ‘Fishing for More’ — some small group questions for you to bring to those in your area.

3.10 Silence

A very special thanks to Peter (Bearded Movie Guy) and Patrick (patrickerskine.com)  for coming on the show!

Filed Under: Film, Oscar Spotlight, Podcast Tagged With: Academy Awards, Adam Driver, Andrew Garfield, Christianity, drama, Faith, Japan, Liam Neeson, Martin Scorsese, missionary, Oscars, persecution, Silence

2016 sucked (and didn’t) and death is still the problem

December 29, 2016 by Matt Hill Leave a Comment

15780676_10154935525978470_7574595387239350824_n

2016 retrospectives understandably
multiply at the moment,
as does the sentiment
that 2016 sucked,
on the whole

in general,
esp in terms of
what memes get
play on Facebook,
that’s probably accurate

many are pointing, still,
with dystopian, apocalyptic fervor,
at the ascension of
the one they call Trump

fair enough
and agreed
(but read this screed)

many more,
given the timing,
are pointing to
a perceived spate of
high-profile deaths

and fair enough,
agreed,
and i don’t need
to catalogue them here . . .
(we’ve seen, read,
perhaps wept,
at least wistfully remembered,
watched that old flick,
spun that classic disc,
relived triumphant
human moments,
reveled in kitsch
and gravitas alike)

tldr: i’m sad, like you,
and it does make me say,
with you,
that 2016 sucked

but/however

2016 also did not suck

perhaps it’d help to
catalogue items of hope?
births full of potential?
perhaps it’d help to
meme and proliferate
that instead?
to burn those images,
those memories,
into our heads?

and/also

i wonder whether
this spate is truly a spate,
or if bad things just
*seem* to come in bunches,
when one looks
for bad things,
when one memes,
in general,
on Facebook?

and/also

i wonder whether
it’s just that
we’re all of us
getting to a certain age,
our pop culture,
our social media,
included?

and/also/finally/respectfully

isn’t that the point?

that we’re all of us
getting to a certain age,
that we’re all of us
moments closer to the end,
like them,
even as we sit and
write/read this screed?

isn’t
death
still
the
problem?

yes/of course

yes, of course,
part of why
those who die
matter is:
as horrible reminder,
as gauges of
our own mortality,
our own significance –
their finished stories
meeting our continuing story,
their deaths foreshadowing
our eventual death

isn’t death still the problem?
a problematic
part of life at least?

don’t we
(at least)
wish
it
were
different?
and shouldn’t we?

don’t we
(at least)
wish for
a mollifying perspective?
a palliative of some sort?
a blow softener?
a medicine, a salve,
a balm in Gilead?
or maybe we even wish for
a solution,
a fix?
a de-stinger
for death’s sting?

don’t we,
ultimately,
wish for
death’s death?
for resurrection?
for vindicated life –
true life?

yes/of course

and/well

probably, maybe they’re
working on such a thing –
probably, hopefully
it’ll be around for 2017,
you know,
so we’re not just
here again in a year –
meming on Facebook
and so on . . .

or/perhaps

there’s such a thing already

Filed Under: Current Events, Editorial Tagged With: 2016, Carrie Fisher, celebrity deaths, Christian, Christianity, David Bowie, death, Debbie Reynolds, Donald Trump, facebook, george michael, gospel, Jesus, prince, Social Media, spiritual

Who Wants An Apocalypse? – The Story of God (Ep. 2)

April 10, 2016 by J. Alan Sharrer Leave a Comment

ExplosionIn his poem “Fire and Ice,” Robert Frost offers a brief discussion about how the end of the world will occur. In the end, he seems content with either fire or ice, but the end of planet earth is a topic many people discuss and debate today: How’s it going to happen?  Who’s going to set the pieces in motion? Are we going to be around to see it happen with our own eyes?  In tonight’s second episode of The Story of God with Morgan Freeman (National Geographic Channel, 9P/8C), he takes a closer look at what faith has to say about the end of days. The findings are worth taking a look at for yourself.

While Freeman takes trips in the episode to Mexico (Aztec), India (Buddhist), Jerusalem (Jewish), and New York City (Islam—and a fascinating discussion with a gentleman who was part of the group that would later become Al Qaeda), the episode has a significant focus on the Christian belief of how the world will meet its demise.  Freeman talks with Jodi Magness, a professor at UNC, as she takes him to Qumran and shows him where the Dead Sea Scrolls were located.  The location is pretty breathtaking, as the caves built into the rock formations offer a glimpse of where the Battle of Armageddon would supposedly take place. The folks who occupied the caves—known as the Essenes—believed the impending war would bring them redemption lasting for eternity. They got their battle, all right—but it was with the Romans, who dropped by for a visit in 68 AD and destroyed the sect.

This concept of war has always been part of the canon of Christianity—all it takes is a quick read of the book of Revelation.  With all its symbolism and heavenly preparations for God to usher in a new heaven and new earth, a major focal point has involved the 13th chapter of the book.  It includes a massive beast rising out of the sea, a second beast giving orders to worship the first beast, and the imposition of a mark on all people—the number 666. Horror movie directors love it and devoted followers of Jesus today are scared to have it anywhere in their sight, whether it be on a license plate or their number of Facebook friends.

Morgan Freeman and Kim Haines-Eitzen
ROME – Morgan Freeman examines ancient documents with Cornell University Professor of Ancient Mediterranean Religions Kim Haines-Eitzen at the Biblioteca Casanatense in Rome, Italy.

 (photo credit: National Geographic Channels/Seth Nejame)

Freeman visits the Biblioteca Casanatense in Rome, a centuries-old library filled with ancient texts, for a discussion with Cornell professor Kim Haines-Eitzen. She shows him some writings and talks about who Revelation 13 may be referring to (hint: it didn’t involve any political candidates in America during the 21st century). Using numerology, the writings seem to show the Antichrist was Emperor Nero, a wild ruler from Rome in the first century who persecuted Christians intensely, killing them or using them as human torches. There was even speculation the number in the Bible was actually 616, not 666. But nevertheless, people of that time supposedly knew exactly who the text was talking about—and lived their lives appropriately.

If there is one point the second episode of The Story of God with Morgan Freeman seeks to make, it’s that the end of days allows people an opportunity to renew their lives.  He references Hurricane Katrina’s visit to New Orleans in 2004 and talks to people who started their lives over as a result—particularly in the Ninth Ward.  The apocalypse may not happen today, tomorrow, or even five years from now, but it provides us the opportunity for introspection and a chance to be renewed as we consider God and are reminded that He’s ultimately in control of the winds, waves, and the end of the world. 

Filed Under: Reviews, Television Tagged With: 666, Al Queda, Bibloteca Casanatense, Christianity, Dead Sea Scrolls, Essenes, Faith, Hurricane Katrina, India, Jerualem, Jesus, Jodi Magness, Mark of the Beast, Mexico, Morgan Freeman, Nero, New Orleans, New York, Ninth Ward, Numerology, Qumran, Revelation, Robert Frost

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

THE SF NEWS

Get a special look, just for you.

sf podcast

Hot Off the Press

  • Thor: Love and Thunder – [Faith, Hope] and Love and Thunder
  • Culture Shock: Blowing Up Independence Day
  • Jerry and Marge Go Large: Breaking Bank
  • Mr. Malcolm’s List: Having Great Expectations
  • Attack on Finland: Boom, Boom, Pow
Find tickets and showtimes on Fandango.

where faith and film are intertwined

film and television carry stories which remind us of the stories God has woven since the beginning of time. come with us on a journey to see where faith and film are intertwined.

Footer

ScreenFish Articles

Thor: Love and Thunder – [Faith, Hope] and Love and Thunder

Culture Shock: Blowing Up Independence Day

  • About ScreenFish
  • Privacy Policy

© 2022 · ScreenFish.net · Built by Aaron Lee

Posting....
 

Loading Comments...