Mikey at ThinkChristian.net reviews the soon to be released movie, Evan Almighty.
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Zach,
I enjoy your blog, and visit here semi-regularly. Lord willing, I will also be joining your church later this year, as God seems to be leading me there, through a long-distance courtship that is heading towards marriage! :-)
About this blog entry-- my main concern with movies like this one is that they portray God the Father as an actual human being. Not the Son, but the Father Himself. In at least two different places in God's word (Colossians 1:15 and 1 Timothy 1:17), God the Father is described as being "invisible." I'm not sure that the Father wants us to even go NEAR making Him visible, even if the intentions are good, when He Himself has described Himself as invisible in His own word. Do you think that this films such as this one might have uintended implications or consequences, regarding the second commandment? Might human images of God the Father not have an inherent danger of obscuring His infinite glory? J.I. Packer addresses this issue in chapter 4 of Knowing God. That book is a masterpiece, by the way-- if you haven't read it, definitely pick it up. It's life-changing. Anyway, I'll be interested to hear your thoughts! Take care, my brother in Christ!
I think you are right. Probably is a breaking of the 2nd commandment.
Question - Do we make a distinction between those who are claiming to actually be representing the true physical appearance of God and those who present a picture that they know is inaccurate?
Hmm... I'm not sure that anyone would, or even rationally could, claim to actually be representing the "true physical appearance" of God the Father, because the Father literally has no physical appearance. According to Scripture, He is invisible. Therefore, any attempt at a physical representation of Him would, by definition, be inaccurate.
As for an artist who admits this inaccuracy up front, and yet still creates an image which is supposed to represent the Father, and which actually SPEAKS as Him (as Morgan Freeman's character does in Bruce or Evan Almighty), I think it is, at the very least, an unwise choice. Actually, when I really reflect on it, it seems dishonoring to God to portray Him in a way that explicitly contradicts His own description of Himself in Scripture. I'm sure that this is not at all the intention of the filmmaker. Still, if God the Father had wanted Himself portrayed physically by human beings, wouldn't He have given us a physical description of Himself? Even that is a nonsense question though, because He HAS no physicality! :-) Now, Jesus assumed a physical body... but that is a whole other can of worms to open! Anyway, these are more than enough thoughts for one post! :-)
Another question - Do you think this issue is enough to keep you from seeing the movie?
I'm not sure I can pass up the comic genius of Steve Carrell.
I do share your concern. On the surface it appears pretty harmless but trying to constrain God to our physical imaginations is pretty wack. Biblically speaking, if we were to actually see God we would certainly and literally disintegration. I think it would actually and physically blow our minds. God doesn't reveal all of himself to us for our protection it seems. Seems like every time someone gets close (or even to an angel!) in the Bible the universal reaction of fear and much trembling.
For me, when I decide whether or not to read/watch/listen to someone's artistic work, I try to ask myself questions in three basic theological "areas":
1. Does this piece of art portray sin, or does it glorify sin? (If it glorifies sin, then that is a major, major thing of which I am wary.)
2. If it portrays sin, how graphically does it do so? Is there a good chance that the portrayal could cause me to stumble? (Not that all graphic portrayals of sin are bad, as the Bible itself graphically portrays sin, but one must still be careful-- there can be a real difference between portraying sin through the written word and graphically portaying sin visually, through images. Visual mages of sin can, at times, burn into one's mind and corrode one's soul. Ultimately, I take it on a case-by-case basis, with specific artistic works.)
3. If the piece of art deals with God, how does it portray Him? Is it in a way that at least somewhat accurately shows His glory, or is it in a way that obscures or twists His glory? Is there something in this work of art that would cause me to think of God in a way that is other than how He really is?
Ultimately, my main "beef" with Bruce and Evan Almighty is that, in their portrayals of God the Father in human form, these movies not only do not exalt the glory of God, but, I think, they hide and even twist it. Now, objectively, God's glory is inviolable-- there is nothing, objectively, that anyone can do to "harm" it. However, if someone portrays His glory in a way that hides or twists it, that can subjectively harm one's apprehension of it, and maybe even one's beliefs about it. That is a very serious matter. There is no more serious-- or joyful-- matter than God's glory. Any entertainment value that I might get from Evan Almighty would pale in comparison to my grief at how the film veiled God's glory to minds that need to see it. That is why I won't go to see the movie. I hope that I didn't give you too much to read here! :-) Have a blessed day, my brother in Christ!
5 comments:
Zach,
I enjoy your blog, and visit here semi-regularly. Lord willing, I will also be joining your church later this year, as God seems to be leading me there, through a long-distance courtship that is heading towards marriage! :-)
About this blog entry-- my main concern with movies like this one is that they portray God the Father as an actual human being. Not the Son, but the Father Himself. In at least two different places in God's word (Colossians 1:15 and 1 Timothy 1:17), God the Father is described as being "invisible." I'm not sure that the Father wants us to even go NEAR making Him visible, even if the intentions are good, when He Himself has described Himself as invisible in His own word. Do you think that this films such as this one might have uintended implications or consequences, regarding the second commandment? Might human images of God the Father not have an inherent danger of obscuring His infinite glory? J.I. Packer addresses this issue in chapter 4 of Knowing God. That book is a masterpiece, by the way-- if you haven't read it, definitely pick it up. It's life-changing. Anyway, I'll be interested to hear your thoughts! Take care, my brother in Christ!
Chris,
I think you are right. Probably is a breaking of the 2nd commandment.
Question - Do we make a distinction between those who are claiming to actually be representing the true physical appearance of God and those who present a picture that they know is inaccurate?
Hmm... I'm not sure that anyone would, or even rationally could, claim to actually be representing the "true physical appearance" of God the Father, because the Father literally has no physical appearance. According to Scripture, He is invisible. Therefore, any attempt at a physical representation of Him would, by definition, be inaccurate.
As for an artist who admits this inaccuracy up front, and yet still creates an image which is supposed to represent the Father, and which actually SPEAKS as Him (as Morgan Freeman's character does in Bruce or Evan Almighty), I think it is, at the very least, an unwise choice. Actually, when I really reflect on it, it seems dishonoring to God to portray Him in a way that explicitly contradicts His own description of Himself in Scripture. I'm sure that this is not at all the intention of the filmmaker. Still, if God the Father had wanted Himself portrayed physically by human beings, wouldn't He have given us a physical description of Himself? Even that is a nonsense question though, because He HAS no physicality! :-) Now, Jesus assumed a physical body... but that is a whole other can of worms to open! Anyway, these are more than enough thoughts for one post! :-)
Chris,
Good thoughts.
Another question - Do you think this issue is enough to keep you from seeing the movie?
I'm not sure I can pass up the comic genius of Steve Carrell.
I do share your concern. On the surface it appears pretty harmless but trying to constrain God to our physical imaginations is pretty wack. Biblically speaking, if we were to actually see God we would certainly and literally disintegration. I think it would actually and physically blow our minds. God doesn't reveal all of himself to us for our protection it seems. Seems like every time someone gets close (or even to an angel!) in the Bible the universal reaction of fear and much trembling.
enough for now...
Zach,
For me, when I decide whether or not to read/watch/listen to someone's artistic work, I try to ask myself questions in three basic theological "areas":
1. Does this piece of art portray
sin, or does it glorify sin? (If it glorifies sin, then that is a major, major thing of which I am wary.)
2. If it portrays sin, how graphically does it do so? Is there a good chance that the portrayal could cause me to stumble? (Not that all graphic portrayals of sin are bad, as the Bible itself graphically portrays sin, but one must still be careful-- there can be a real difference between portraying sin through the written word and graphically portaying sin visually, through images. Visual mages of sin can, at times, burn into one's mind and corrode one's soul. Ultimately, I take it on a case-by-case basis, with specific artistic works.)
3. If the piece of art deals with God, how does it portray Him? Is it in a way that at least somewhat accurately shows His glory, or is it in a way that obscures or twists His glory? Is there something in this work of art that would cause me to think of God in a way that is other than how He really is?
Ultimately, my main "beef" with Bruce and Evan Almighty is that, in their portrayals of God the Father in human form, these movies not only do not exalt the glory of God, but, I think, they hide and even twist it. Now, objectively, God's glory is inviolable-- there is nothing, objectively, that anyone can do to "harm" it. However, if someone portrays His glory in a way that hides or twists it, that can subjectively harm one's apprehension of it, and maybe even one's beliefs about it. That is a very serious matter. There is no more serious-- or joyful-- matter than God's glory. Any entertainment value that I might get from Evan Almighty would pale in comparison to my grief at how the film veiled God's glory to minds that need to see it. That is why I won't go to see the movie. I hope that I didn't give you too much to read here! :-) Have a blessed day, my brother in Christ!
Post a Comment