Bruce Riley Ashford

In the last two installments of “Taking God to the Movies,” we covered the nine elements of (nearly) every movie and then applied those nine elements to two particular movies, Braveheart and Tommy Boy. In this post, I will choose six “themes” that are prevalent in Hollywood and list a movie or two that I think express each theme. Several of the themes are ones with which I agree, and several of the themes are ones with which I disagree. I will provide a very brief response to each movie.

1. Rules are Bad:

This category is a sort of catch-all for those movies that have themes such as “moral rules are enslaving,” “Judeo-Christian morality is bad,” and “crime is cool.”

The Ocean’s Trilogy: Three of the most worthless movies in the history of American cinema are Ocean’s 11, 12, and 13. Ironically, they are also three of the most popular. One of the themes of these movies is that when cool people commit crimes, crime is cool. The viewer finds himself pulling for the heroes (Brad Pitt, George Clooney, etc.) because they have great clothes, hair, makeup, and one-liners, even though the heroes are serial felons. Film critic Brian Godawa puts it well, “I normally try to say what I like about a film, even if I don’t agree with it, but this one is so morally bankrupt, the immorality overshadows the good. It would be like trying to say what is good about a porn film. There is a point at which the bad overcomes the good and devalues anything that might have been good.” A brief response: Brad Pitt may be cool, but felony robbery is not.

Pleasantville: This film is an onslaught against Judeo-Christian morality, and accomplished its purpose by arguing that people really “come alive” when they make choices against societal norms such as marriage. At the beginning, the film is set in black and white, but at the moment that the actress decides to commit adultery (by picking an apple off the tree), the screen turns to color. The implication is that traditional moral norms are oppressive. A brief response: God’s moral law is given to set us free, not to enslave us.

2. Family is Good:

The Incredibles: One of the best films in recent memory. Its incredible J. At the beginning of this animated children’s film, the family of five superheroes is weakened by internal irritations and arguments. But by the end of the movie, the family has realized that its real enemies are external. Their deep bond is revealed as each person uses his or her unique power (which reflects their individual personality traits) to strengthen the family. Along the way, The Incredibles criticizes the culture of entitlement, lawsuits, and blameshifting that has grown in the United States. A brief response: I agree with the several intertwined themes.

Other flicks with pro-family elements are Family Man, The Patriot, and The Gladiator.

3. Love is a serious commitment:

The Notebook: OK, I know I’m going to take a beating from the male species for this one. I’m going to say that one of the best Hollywood movies of the past several decades is The Notebook. It is one of the few movies that presents a realistic and robust view of love and marriage. It refuses to paint a simplistic or superficial picture of love and marriage. The movie begins with a scene in which an old man reads a love story every day to an elderly woman (Allie). The viewer soon finds out that the elderly woman, Allie, has dementia and cannot remember her past. The old man, Noah, is her husband, who comes to her room daily to read her their loves story until, at the end of the story each day, she realizes that the story is about her love story, and the man reading the story is her husband. The rest of the movie tells the tale of how they came to love one another and marry. The Notebook’s view of love is realistic and robust. It portrays marriage as difficult but worthwhile and that it is forever, and not just for a season. A brief response: The movies is very strongly pro-marriage and pro-family, but does not make clear that human love is not ultimate.

4. God does not exist:

Cast Away: This movie turns Robinson Crusoe on its head. The lead character, played by Tom Hanks, is alone on an island, but unlike Robinson Crusoe the point of the story is that we are alone in the universe. There is no God. Hanks buries the deceased pilot, and after the funeral says, simply, “so that’s it,” implying that there is no after life. Hanks relives the evolutionary stages of mankind by finding shelter, building fire, etc., implying that there is no Creator. There is one spiritual symbol in the movie, a volleyball which Hanks names “Wilson,” but Wilson is a human construction who serves merely as an emotional crutch, implying that there is no God other than human projections. A brief response: The message of Cast Away is antithetical to the gospel.

Other movies promoting a naturalist view of the universe include Bicentennial Man, The Hannibal trilogy, and perhaps Forrest Gump.

5. The Christian gospel is false and harmful:

The Da Vinci Code: Tom Hanks has chosen to star in quite a few films that are blatantly antithetical to the gospel, and this is yet another. In the movie, Langdon (Hanks) asserts that wherever the one true God has been preached, there has been killing in his name. The implication is the monotheism is a murderous worldview. The author, Dan Brown, pens this book as a piece of fiction, but also claims that it is based on facts. This is his way of saying anything negative he wants to about Christianity, implying that those things are true, and when the smart viewer realizes his assertions are not based on historical fact, he throws up his hands and claims, “But its just a work of fiction.” A brief response: A hypocritical and deceptive move.

Hannibal: This decadent and desensitizing movie tells the fictive history of Hannibal the Cannibal (Anthony Hopkins). As Brian Godawa points out, this movie is an intentional mockery of the Christian gospel. The hero of the movie is an agent of darkness and death (Hannibal the Cannibal) instead of Light and Life (Christ). The man who betrays Hannibal in the movie (Pazzi, a police officer) does so for $3 million, which is a play off of Judas’ pieces of silver. Pazzi is killed, like Judas Iscariot, by being hung upside down and his guts spilling to the ground. Hannibal, like Jesus, has a last supper, but Hannibal’s supper is one in which he kills and eats another man’s body. Unlike Jesus, who offered his own body that others might live, Hannibal sacrifices others so that he may devour them. The movie ends with an ascension with Hannibal seated in a jet as it ascends into the sky. Throughout the movie, the writer and director portray Hannibal as a likeable and winsome hero. He is smart, funny, cultured and likeable. A brief response: The theme of this movie is despicable.

6. The Christian gospel is true and good:

There are more than a few movies that, in one way or another, are positive toward the gospel. Les Miserables is the story of a convicted prisoner whose life is transformed by the grace and mercy shown him by another man. The theme of grace and mercy runs throughout the story, making this a fine movie. The Green Mile is the story of a wrongly accused minority, John Coffey, who is able to heal infirmities by touch, by taking the disease into himself, suffering pain because of the disease, and later releasing the disease. In the end, not only does Coffee die in the place of the real killer, but the screenwriter informs us that the electric chair was never used again. This story intentionally parallels the gospel, as Jesus was a wrongly accused minority who heals us by taking our sin on his shoulders, dying in our place, and in dying defeating death. Braveheart is a movie in which the hero’s death became the loss that won Scotland’s freedom, just as Jesus’ death is the loss that wins our freedom.

A brief response: These movies parallel the gospel in significant ways, but of course the movies themselves are not the gospel.

Dockery argues that there are at least seven different subgroups among conservative Southern Baptists, with both internal variety within those subgroups and periodic overlap between subgroups. I have reproduced his list below from page 11 of Southern Baptist Consensus and Renewal:

1. Fundamentalists
2. Revivalists
3. Traditionalists
4. Orthodox Evangelicals
5. Calvinists
6. Contemporary church practitioners
7. Culture Warriors

I think Dockery does a fine job of pointing out some of the key stakeholders in the SBC. The point he was trying to make with his list is this: if the SBC is to have a viable future, each of these groups must commit to a basic theological consensus around which they can all cooperate for the sake of renewal, despite honest differences in many secondary and tertiary matters. The remainder of Southern Baptist Consensus and Renewal is devoted to suggesting a consensus that would, Lord willing, result in renewal. I highly recommend you read the book.

I deeply resonate with Dockery’s vision for the future of the SBC. In many ways, it complements the vision articulated by Great Commission Resurgence advocates over the past three years (at least this GCR advocate). But I confess I’m afraid that this vision is imperiled right now because some SBC conservatives aren’t getting along very well with each other. Some don’t seem to want consensus.

The debate over the GCR, especially the Task Force’s interim report, has magnified some of the differences among various conservatives. In particular, there is considerable tension between those who primarily identify with the state conventions (a subgroup I would add to Dockery’s list) and those who identify more with the “national” SBC. Some remarkably mean things have been said by those on both side. Much of the invective has been spewed in private forums and through personal communication (which, naturally, almost never remains private). Others have made public accusations about their fellow Southern Baptists in blogs or even traditional media like Baptist Press.

Social media like Twitter and Facebook sometimes exacerbate the tensions. I have read some pretty nasty comments—by folks on both sides—over the past few weeks. This is not counting the rude (and often sophomoric) comments by those wannabe prophets who take the “a pox on both your houses” approach to the whole debate. I cannot help but think that there are some Southern Baptists, including some relatively well-known ones, who will one day grow up a bit and regret the foolish things they’ve said on Twitter and/or Facebook.

We have some real differences of opinions, to be sure. There are some folks out there who want us to do very little besides urban church planting. There are also some who think we don’t need to streamline much of anything, and perhaps add even more layers of bureaucracy. There are some who almost exclusively talk about engaging unreached people groups, and others who question the entire strategy of focusing on unreached people groups. There are some who fear the Task Force is really a political movement that is mostly concerned with getting some of their own members in the vacant agency presidencies. Others complain that state convention leaders only care about perpetuating the present status quo at all costs. There are some Southern Baptists who clearly don’t care a great deal for the Cooperative Program, others who come close to arguing the CP = cooperation, and others who aren’t sure what they think about it. This is just scratching the surface of some of the opinions I’ve heard with my own ears or read with my own eyes.

I think every Southern Baptist who cares strongly one way or other about the Great Commission Resurgence needs to step back and take a deep breath. Despite our differing opinions, we are all on the same team. We all care about the health of our denomination. We all care about reaching the lost, both here and abroad. We all care about defending and commending sound doctrine, including traditional Baptist distinctives. We all want Southern Baptists to be characterized by thousands upon thousands of healthy local churches that are marked by gospel faithfulness and gospel urgency. We all say we love the Lord Jesus Christ above all things and we all claim a desire to follow his lordship in all things. So why do we sound so much like the world as we debate the relative merits and pitfalls of the GCR?

I can’t remember where I first read it, but I’ve seen some bloggers argue that we will not have a Great Commission Resurgence without a Great Commandment Resurgence. Ronnie Floyd said something very similar in the Task Force’s interim report. No matter what you may think about the relative merits of the interim report’s suggestions, surely we can all agree that we need to do a better job of cultivating Christian love among the brethren in the midst of denominational debate.

Southern Baptists must stop questioning each other’s motives and assuming the worst about those with whom we differ. We must stop painting the “other side” in a bad light, be it through intemperate language or through faulty assumptions. We must stop trying to score points with “our side” by dropping snarky sound bites that elicit “amens” and “attaboys” from those who already agree with us. We must honor God in our words and actions, even as we carry on a real debate about important issues that affect the future health of our denomination.

There’s an old hymn that says “they’ll know we are Christians by our love.” What do our words and deeds communicate about our love for one another and our love for Christ? I think this is a crucial question at this time in SBC history. It is my hope and prayer that every engaged Southern Baptist, whether they are for the GCR or against it, will guard their tongues and check their actions in the coming months before Orlando. Southern Baptists are a family, and we must love one another in the midst of this important family discussion. To do anything less would bring shame upon the name of Christ, regardless of who “wins” the Great GCR Debate of 2010.

Bruce Riley Ashford

Now that we have taken a look at the nine elements in (nearly) every movie, let’s try our hand at picking out those nine elements in a couple of popular movies. I’ve selected Braveheart and Tommy Boy, because in my experience teaching seminars on cinema, those are two movies that nearly everybody has seen, and because they are two very different movies. While many of us expect movies like Braveheart to have a serious theme, perhaps we do not expect movies like Tommy Boy to convey any sort of message or philosophy of life. But we would wrong to think that even goofball comedies have no message. All movies are conveying messages! For those of you who have seen these two movies, hopefully it will be a helpful example of how to pick out the nine elements. Because of time and space limitations, I have not answered each of the questions, for each of the nine elements. I have settled for a very brief analysis of each film.

In Braveheart, the hero is William Wallace and his goal is to liberate Scotland. His adversary is England in general and Longshanks in particular. Wallace’s character flaw is perhaps more difficult to discern than the other eight elements, but my best shot is that his flaw was in being gullible when he wrongly trusted the noble Robert de Bruce. The apparent defeat occurred during the Battle of Falkirk, when the nobles did not ride in to help Wallace and his army. The final confrontation occurred when Wallace was tortured on the rack. His self-revelation was that his death was for a worthy cause, and the resolution is that Scotland was indeed liberated. The theme is something like, “Sometimes victory and liberation come only through great sacrifice.” Screenwriter Randall Wallace said that the story was a reflection of the gospel. And to an extent, it is.

A critique of this movie would include the following recognitions: (1) the basic storyline does follow the storyline of the gospel, and can open up a conversation with others that easily leads to the gospel; (2) the hero, William Wallace, is a good hero who is nonetheless flawed as is every fallen human. He is a good example in some respects, such as his courage and sacrificial dedication to a good cause, and yet is a bad example in other respects; and (3) the movie is rated “R” for brutal medieval warfare, and for that reason would not make for good younger viewers. I have been told that the cinema edition of Braveheart also has a brief sex scene.

In Tommy Boy, Tommy Boy Callahan is the hero and his goal is to rescue his father’s auto parts business. His adversaries are Dan Ackroyd (Zalinski’s auto parts), Bo Derek (step-mom), and Rob Lowe (his step-mom’s “son”). On the one hand, the viewer immediately likes the hero Tommy Boy because he is genuinely friendly, funny, and possesses character flaws that are endearing. He is a goofy, irresponsible college grad who has no tact or business sense about him whatsoever. On the other hand, the viewer has many clues that he is not supposed to like the adversaries. Rob Lowe is introduced clothed in black, wearing a foreboding expression on his face, throwing his trash into an occupied baby carriage. (A not-so-subtle hint that the viewer should be suspicious of Lowe. One should not expect such subtlety and nuance in movies that star Chris Farley.)

Tommy Boy experiences an apparent defeat when the adversaries sabotage the computers at the Callahan business, so that Callahan’s products are shipped to the wrong cities. The final confrontation occurs when Tommy Boy walks into Callahan board meeting with road flares strapped to his gargantuan torso, and delivers a speech to the board and the media. Tommy Boy’s self-revelation is that he can still “be himself” and rescue the Callahan business, as long as he corrects some of his character flaws. In the movie’s resolution, the Callahan business succeeds. The theme of the movie, I think, is that one can be an ordinary person and succeed even in the face of great difficulty and evil, if one believes in oneself and corrects some character flaws.

A critique of this movie would acknowledge that (1) the hero of the movie is a good-hearted and loving fellow who rightly corrects some of his character flaws and proves that the good guys can win without becoming bad guys; the basic message of the movie is fairly good; and (2) there are nonetheless some elements of the movie that are undesirable.

Bruce Riley Ashford

This third installment of the “Taking God to the Movies” will include a brief look at the nine elements in nearly every Hollywood movie: theme, hero, hero’s goal, adversary, character flaw, apparent defeat, final confrontation, self-revelation, and resolution. Once the viewer can identify these nine elements, he or she is ready to begin analyzing the movie and responding to its storyline from a confessionally Christian viewpoint.

The first element is a movie’s theme. The theme is the author’s message, the ultimate point he makes. It is what the movie is ultimately about. For example, in the movie Braveheart, the theme is that some things are worth dying for, because in dying we might set others free. In The Incredibles, the main point is that the family must band together to fight the forces that would come against them. From Shrek, we learn that we should not be afraid of others who are different from us (even if they are green and have ears that look like small saucers). In Ocean’s 11 and Ocean’s 12, the theme, as best I can tell, is “crime is cool.” A movie doesn’t necessarily have one theme; it might have two or three or even more. One question we should ask is, “Is this a theme that resonates with what I believe to be true and good?”

The second element is the movie’s hero. The hero is the main character of the movie. In the Rocky films, the hero is Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone). In The Lion King, Simba is the hero. In Christmas Vacation, the hero is Clark Griswold. The hero is the person the screenwriter and director want you to like, and they will use everything at their disposal to help you like the hero (script, lighting, sound, etc). This element of the movie is the rather easy to discern and very important to the movie’s story. One question is whether or not the hero is a character that should be admired. “Does the hero correct his character flaw? Is the virtuous? Does he stand for what is true and good?”

The third element is the hero’s goal. The hero’s goal is a strong desire with which he is obsessed, and which drives the story of the movie. The hero may want to win the love of a woman (Titanic), gain control of his own destiny (The Truman Show), free Scotland from the control of those bad English people (Braveheart), or to win the love of a man (Legally Blond). The screenwriter and directors are able to craft the story in such a way that we usually find ourselves pulling for the hero to achieve his goal. We should ask, “Is the hero’s goal an admirable one? Are there any ways in which it is wrong-headed?”

The fourth element is the adversary. This character is the character in the movie who opposes the hero and tries to keep him from obtaining his goal. The adversary could be a person (Drago in Rocky IV), several persons (Dan Ackroyd, Rob Lowe, and Bo Derek in Tommy Boy), an animal (Ursula in The Little Mermaid), or a force of nature (the storm in The Perfect Storm) or even God (Christof in The Truman Show). The adversary usually is the  person who the screenwriter and director want you to dislike. They will use visual effects (the adversary may wear black), audio effects (ominous music), and scripted lines to let you know who the adversary is and why you shouldn’t like him. This is a significant clue for the viewer as to whether or not he agrees with the theme. We should ask, “Is the adversary actually bad? Does the adversary represent someone or something which I would actually want to disagree with or pull against? Is the film calling something evil or bad which is actually evil or bad?”

The fifth element is the character flaw. Whereas the adversary is the external opponent of the hero, the character flaw is the internal opponent. The character flaw might be a wrong way of seeing the world, a wrong way of living, etc. If the character corrects his flaw, the movie is be a drama or a comedy. If the character does not correct his flaw, the movie is a tragedy or a comedy. In Braveheart, William Wallace’s flaw was his gullibility in trusting Robert de Bruce. We should ask, “Is the character’s flaw really a flaw? Does he rely on God’s grace to correct his flaw? Does he refuse to acknowledge the flaw?”

The sixth element is the apparent defeat. This scene usually occurs during the middle of the movie. The hero is being thwarted by his character flaw and adversary. He cannot achieve his goal, and it seems that all is lost. He may have a near-death experience or a time in which his life appears to be worthless. Often viewers are so caught up in the movie, and so committed to pulling for the hero, that they find themselves afraid, or very sad, or caught up in hair-curling suspense. Perhaps the plane is about to crash (Top Gun), the hero gives up because he will never fit in (Elf), the dad will never find his daughter (Taken), or the nerds will never win (Napoleon Dynamite). The apparent defeat is usually connected to the next element, the final confrontation.

The seventh element is the final confrontation. Usually, this comes toward the end of the apparent defeat, and is a scene in which the hero and adversary square off. Usually, the adversary explains his rationale for who he is and why he does what he does, and the hero does the same. This is an exercise in “worldviews in conflict.” The adversary’s rationale is the one that the screenwriter and director do not want us to accept. We should ask, “Is the screenwriter correct that I should oppose this adversary and his rationale?”

The eighth element is the hero’s self-revelation. This is a scene, often at the end of the movie, where the hero has an “aha moment.” In Braveheart, William Wallace is being tortured on the rack when his eyes focus on a crowd of Scots, and a small child in particular, and realizes that his death is for a worthy cause, that of setting the Scots free. We should ask, “Is this self-revelation a good one?”

The ninth element is the resolution. This is the “happily ever after” or “sadly ever after.” It shows the result of the hero’s decisions and actions.

Some of our state conventions will seem at an overwhelming loss, especially as it pertains to the cooperative agreements. However, as we address these issues together, especially as it pertains to our pioneer states, I believe the cry will be heard, maybe more clearly and louder than ever, for Southern Baptists to rise and meet the greatest challenges ever. I believe we are positioning the Southern Baptist Convention, as it pertains to funding, in such a way that will create greater generosity.

We have known great days in our Southern Baptist Convention, but it is more than just mere words when I say, “our best is yet to be.” It has been said, “God rarely requires what is easily released.” I feel Southern Baptists have been in somewhat of a comfort zone. Now many are listening and watching to see just how serious we are about the unreached, unengaged, and the under-served of this nation and the nations of the world. I pledge with all of the loyalty of my heart to challenge every pastor that will listen to do their best in supporting our Cooperative Program, believing that it will cause the entire convention to rise, even in this economy, to give their greatest gifts ever. All of us must do more, and as we do, we will have greater resources to pierce the darkness for the express purpose that God may be glorified, His kingdom may be enlarged, and the church will be edified.

God help this to become a reality for it is more than just words. It is a voiced prayer in Jesus name. Please pray with us that God give us wisdom from heaven as we work together as a family to embrace the Great Commission in a way that God will be glorified.

God Bless,
Pastor Johnny

This article was also posted at the Pray4GCR website.

Bruce Riley Ashford

In this second installment of “Taking God to the Movies,” I give a concise summary of the Bible’s grand narrative, stretching from Creation and Fall through to Redemption and New Creation. This narrative provides the starting point, trajectory, and framework for analyzing the stories told in Hollywood’s films. Each of the biblical narrative’s plot movements is significant; indeed, if we are to view the world Christianly, we must view it simultaneously through the lens of all four movements.

In the biblical account of Creation, we learn that this world is created by the triune God. This world is a good world that God has filled with men and women made in his image who are uniquely positioned to worship and obey him. God’s world is a world that reflects his glory and points continually to his beauty and goodness. During this first part of the biblical narrative, God’s good world was marked by universal human flourishing (shalom), as man was in harmonious relationship with God, with others, with the created order, and with himself.

In the biblical account of The Fall, however, we learn that this universal flourishing was broken as man and woman rebelled against God and in doing so alienated themselves from God, from others, from the created order, and finally even from themeselves. Man was alienated from God, under condemnation for his rebellious mutiny. He is also alienated from others, as his sinful disposition results in all manner of social and cultural evil (murder, rape, slander, unjust war, etc.). Further, he is alienated from the created order as he no longer lives in perfect mutual interdependence with created nature (hurricanes, tsunamis, polluted waters, etc.). Finally, he is alienated even from himself, no longer living as he was designed to live (existential angst, depression, mental illness, etc.)   As a result, God’s good and beautiful creation is marred by the ugliness of sin, sin which has far broader impact that we might typically imagine.

In the third plot movement, Redemption, God immediately promises to send a Savior who will redeem and restore God’s people and his world. The entirety of Christian Scripture speaks of this Savior and his salvation. In the gospels, we learn that this Savior is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Through his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection, we are provided with redemption and the reversal of our alienation. We may once again be brought into right relationship with God, with others, with the created order, and even with himself. But this redemption will not be complete until the end times, when the Creator restores his good creation, giving us a New Heavens and Earth, as foretold in the prophets, which will be inhabited by the redeemed of the nations who dwell eternally with their God. We now live in the age of fall and redemption, but await the age of new creation. We find ourselves living between the ages.

From this narrative, we learn not only about redemption, but about God, the world, humanity, knowledge, morality, history, and death. Christian Scripture speaks to every facet of human existence, and about every dimension of human society and culture. In a nutshell, Scripture sets forth a worldview. It gives a particular view about ultimate reality (God is ultimate reality), the world (created by God, essentially good, open to miracles), humanity (created in God’s image, alienated from God), knowledge (knowledge is possible because God enabled us to know and has communicated with us through Scripture and through nature), morality (right and wrong is based on God’s character; certain moral laws are written on the hearts of all humans), human history (it is linear and is moving towards an end), and death (death is not final, heaven and hell).

Christian Scripture, therefore, not only tells the true story of God and his redemption, but gives us a way of thinking about life’s most important questions. We as Christians think, speak, and experience life from within this narrative and worldview. Likewise, Hollywood screenwriters also think, speak, and experience life from within their own worldviews. Their films are mini-narratives that each arise from within a worldview and speak to significant issues such as ultimate reality, the world, humanity, knowledge, morality, history, and death. Screenwriters deal with the same questions, problems, and experiences that are dealt with in Christian Scripture. For this reason, the next installment of this series will discuss how to “read” the narratives set forth in a Hollywood film, so that we can compare these narratives to the one set forth in Scripture.

Bruce Riley Ashford

No offense intended toward seminary professors, publishers, and pastors, but the most influential theologians in the United States of America are screenwriters, producers, lyricists, and musicians. These Hollywood theologians’ convey their messages through movies, televisions shows, and popular music, which become the lingua franca of the various cultures and sub-cultures of the USA: John Mayer, Jay-Z, and Black Eyed Peas have more access to American homes than Piper, Driscoll, and Mahaney. Quentin Tarrantino, Oliver Stone, and M. Night Shyamalan have had more formative influence than Grudem, Frame, and Packer. Avatar and Taken have captivated more people than Mere Christianity or Knowing God.

Without even realizing it, many people allow movies, music, and television to have a formative role in shaping their worldviews. These media have the power to convey messages, make impressions, and rouse emotions unlike most anything else. They create a narrative world in which the viewer or listener perceives life from the narrator’s point of view. Embedded in that narrative world are memorable scenes, one-liners, and lyrics that give “snapshot” or “sound-byte” summaries of the narrator’s worldview.

In light of the pervasive influence of these media, this blog series will encourage Christians to watch movies with wisdom and discernment, viewing them through the lens of Scripture, and using their stories to open up conversations with others to whom we can introduce the Story of the world. In the next installment (2), we will summarize the biblical narrative, the master narrative of the world, which teaches us how to think about God, the world, humanity, knowledge, morality, history, death, and redemption, and in so doing, teaches us how to view the narratives set forth at the cinema. In the remaining installments, we will (3) discuss the nine elements of a movie’s storyline which help us to understand the movie’s message; (4) expose the storylines of two popular movies in order to illustrate those nine elements; (5) delineate six prominent themes in Hollywood movies, listing under each themes one or two movies that illustrate it; and (6) answer two possible objections to this series and give some concluding thoughts.

Allow me a couple of prefatory notes, however. I first became interested in “how to watch a movie” under the influence of a philosophy professor, L. Russ Bush, who taught us to always think critically, whether we were in a conversation, reading a book, listening to music, or watching a movie or show. During his Ph. D. seminar on the modern mind, I first discovered theologian John Frame’s Theology at the Movies and screenwriter Brian Godawa’s Hollywood Worldviews. All three men have influenced my thinking in various ways and I want to acknowledge that influence and encourage the readers of this series to consider purchasing Frame’s manual (available only through Westminster Seminary’s campus bookstore) and Godawa’s book. Godawa’s book in particular has helped me to shape this blog series.

Finally, I cheerfully admit that I am not a professional movie critic. I am a Christian theologian and missiologist who seeks to provide a basic starting point, trajectory, and parameters for watching movies with wisdom and discernment. I do so by offering guidelines for understanding a movie’s storyline and for viewing it through the lens of the biblical narrative. I will not spend much time discussing other significant and influential aspects of cinema, such as sound, lighting, and production. I welcome your comments and hope that you enjoy the series and find it helpful in your endeavor to view the world Christianly.

Because we are denominational servants, we want to write about issues that are relevant to “real life” ministry in general and local churches in particular. To that end, we are seeking your input. We know the majority of our readers are pastors, other paid church staff, foreign missionaries, church planters, or students preparing for one of these ministries. We want to know what topics you think we should write about, especially at Between the Times. (Though we also welcome suggestions about topics we should write about in other media like books and print articles.) In addition to our regular contributors, we have dozens of other gifted faculty members who are well equipped to write about any number of topics. How can we best serve you and your church through this blog?

We want to invite you to leave a comment and make some suggestions. The more specific you can be in your suggestions, the better. We look forward to hearing from you and, Lord willing, crafting some future articles in response to your suggestions. Thanks for reading this blog, and thanks in advance for your thoughts about what we should write about in the days to come.

It is no surprise that I am enthusiastic about our report delivered by Ronnie Floyd on February 22 in Nashville. I equally rejoice in the fact that the report was unanimously affirmed by all the members of the Taskforce. I believe that we are going to see the final report adopted overwhelmingly in Orlando when we come together for our annual meeting in June. Why do I believe this will be the case? Let me offer several specific reasons.

First, the report contains a strong and visionary missional statement that is Great Commission focused. Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts. 1:8 are the foundation upon which we will move forward together in the 21st century. Furthermore, Southern Baptists have always been a Great Commission people, and this report speaks to the heart of our people.

Second, the core values that provide a preamble to the report will foster a more healthy culture for SBC life in the 21st century and beyond if our Lord tarries His coming. The core values are biblical, theological, spiritual and practical in their makeup. These are values that Southern Baptists can embrace and rally around.

Third, the report rightly gives priority to the local church as the headquarters of SBC life. Our final report is certain to challenge every local church in the areas of Great Commission priority, faithful biblical preaching, intentional discipleship, stewardship and missional living. Each of these is already embedded in our initial report to our national agencies. If they come to fruition in our churches, it will be a new and better day in SBC life!

Fourth, the report unleashes NAMB and IMB for greater strategizing and action in carrying out the Great Commission. The new vision for NAMB will present both new opportunities and challenges for our state conventions and local associations. I believe they will rise to the task and do what is needed to usher in an unprecedented day of massive church planting and gospel penetration to the unreached and underserved areas of North America. This alone has the potential to revolutionize our convention for the good of our nation and all nations.

Fifth, the report recognizes the strategic importance of our state conventions by returning to them the vital assignments of cooperative program promotion and stewardship instruction. I believe this has real possibilities to bless financially both our state and national entities. Working together and in concert with the Executive Committee this has potential to generate new and fresh momentum for the life blood of the SBC, the Cooperative Program.

Finally, I love the fact that the report acknowledges the Cooperative Program as the central and primary giving channel of Southern Baptists, while at the same time celebrating all giving to Southern Baptist causes through what we are calling “Great Commission Giving” (GCG). To my great delight this idea found its genesis among several of our state executives. I believe they recognize that 1) giving follows vision and 2) people give to what we celebrate. There is so much to celebrate in SBC life. If we communicate that well, I believe our people will give well too.

Continue to pray for the GCRTF. Our work is not yet done. There still remains more for us to do. God has been good to us so far. By His grace, for His glory, and with the good of the nations constantly before us, let us believe that our best days as Southern Baptists are yet to come!

Danny Akin

By Keith Whitfield

At a recent conference, Tim Keller addressed the challenges of evangelism in a post-modern context and gave six principles on how to pursue evangelism in this context. The first principle was “Gospel Theologizing,” and what he meant by this is phrase that all theology should articulate the gospel message. He says our theology should be an exposition of the gospel, and our presentation of the gospel should be situated within the biblical story. In order to engage the post-modern society, he argues, the gospel must fit into a coherent story that interrupts all of life. Ed Stetzer echoes this point as he emphasizes the need to be aware of the changes in our culture and the need to realize that proclaiming the gospel in the West is like cross cultural missions.

The Gospel in the Evangelical Missional Church

In the evangelical missional church, there is an effort to recast the message of the gospel. The recasting does not involve a change in the nature of the gospel, but it rather involves situating the historic orthodox gospel message within the Christian worldview so as to make the gospel clear, coherent, and holistic. Mark Driscoll models this when he writes that to “understand the doctrine of Jesus’ death on the cross, also known as the atonement, we must connect it to the doctrines of God’s character, God’s creation, human sin, and the responses of God to sin and sinners” (Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Churches, 29).

What you find in Driscoll’s words is that the gospel message entails the doctrines of God, sin, and God’s response to sin. He affirms that a historic fall affected all humanity, leading everyone to committing sinful actions. He affirms God’s holiness and just punishment towards sin. He affirms that God deals with the problem of forgiving sin by satisfying His holiness and justice through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. He argues that this view of the atonement matters because “Salvation is defined as deliverance by God from God and his wrath” (Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Churches , 34).

This approach to the gospel is related to older approaches to gospel proclamation, like The Four Spiritual Laws booklet: (1) “God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life,” (2) “Man is sinful and separated from God,” (3) “Jesus Christ is God’s provision for man’s sin,” (4) “We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.” However, the new trajectory among missional evangelicals is to situate gospel truth within the story of redemption. The evangelistic impact of this approach is that it offers a story that can confront and challenge the alternative stories people are trying to live.

In a short article, “How Can I Know God?,” Keller argues that the gospel requires that people understand three things: “who we are,” “who God is,” and “what you must do.” The story of redemption tells us that we are created by God and for Him, but we have sinned against him. It also tells us that God is just and loving, and these two characteristics of God come together in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Finally, the story of redemption tells us what we must do, which Keller captures in the words “repent,” “believe,” “pray,” and “follow through.”

Regarding ministry to our changing culture, Driscoll asks, “In our fast-paced and ever-changing culture of insanity, many Christians are prone either to cling to yesterday or to run headlong into tomorrow searching for a home. What’s our goal?” He answers himself,

The gospel requires us to proclaim and embody the full work of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Jesus has accomplished four things which people long for. First, Jesus takes away the sins that separate us from God so that we can be connected to God, which fills our spiritual longings. Second, Jesus takes away the sins that separate us from each other so that we can be reconciled to each other as the church, which fills our social longings. Third, Jesus forgives the sins we have committed, thereby cleansing us of our filth, which fills our emotional longing for forgiveness. Fourth, Jesus cleanses us of the defilement that has come upon us through the sins of others, which fulfills our psychological longing for healing, cleansing, and new life (The Radical Reformission, 82).

Evangelism in the Evangelical Missional Church

One of the key features of the missional approach to evangelism is a shift from program-driven and attractional evangelism to relational and missional evangelism. This shift is stimulated by the realization that people are not able to convert from one worldview to another by a mere decision. Rather, they need established relationships where the credibility of the gospel can be demonstrated. Stetzer and Putman write,

What we are discovering is that those who are effective in breaking the code understand that there has been a radical shift in how we do evangelism. We can no longer just appeal to people to come ‘back’ to an institution of which they do not remember being a part. With this fading memory, proclamation evangelism has decreased in its effectiveness. Asking people to literally change their worldview after simply hearing the gospel, with no previous exposure to a Christian worldview, is usually unrealistic. While churches that effectively evangelize the unchurched/unreached do not abandon proclamation evangelism, they set it in the context of community, experience, and service (Breaking the Missional Code, 84).

With this cultural change, the evangelical missionals realize that they cannot simply ask people to say yes to a presentation of religious truths. The task of evangelism is pursuing the process where people’s thinking and worldviews change. Evangelism then must become more process-oriented and relationally based, where the gospel truths are lived out before their eyes in the lives of others and the gospel reality is worked out in their own lives. The process approach assumes theological convictions. First, it maintains a belief that God is at work in the lives of lost people. Next, Christians should build relationships with people and value them. Third, it is important to listen and learn where God is at work in people’s lives. Fourth, we depend on God to lead us in how to share with people about the gospel and help them connect the gospel story with their own story.

“Missional,” for the evangelicals, is a strategic disposition towards its culture that directs how the church seeks to fulfill its calling. Stetzer says, “missional means being a missionary without ever leaving your zip code” (Planting Missional Churches, 19). Driscoll captures this vision in these words, “a radical call for Christians and Christian churches to recommit to living and speaking the gospel . . . to continually unleash the gospel to do its work of reforming dominant cultures and church subcultures” (Radical Reformission, 20). For Keller, missional means attempting to communicate so that non-Christians will understand the gospel. Its vision involves retelling the culture’s stories with the gospel, training lay people to “think Christianly” in public life and vocation, and creating counter cultural Christian communities. Keller sets forth this vision to demonstrate that what God is doing in the church through the gospel is radically different than what is happening in the culture around the church (“The Missional Church”). The gospel that he is referring to has at its center a substitutionary atonement and a call to repentance, and thus, for the evangelicals, being missional demands pursuing the spiritual conversion of individuals.

 Keith Whitfield is pastor of Waverly Baptist Church in Waverly, Virginia, and a doctoral student in theological studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. This post is fifth in a series of six articles.