pilgrim people

OK, I will admit it publicly: I saw the film Fireproof. That's right, the one starring...(pause to wince)...Kirk Cameron. There, I said it.

Those of you who know me may be a little shocked and wonder why a creation-affirming, film-loving Reformed minister would want to see a "Christian" film, especially one with the former Growing Pains star and made by the Kendrick brothers (who made, hands down, the worst movie I have ever seen, one that thoroughly misrepresented Christianity with a prosperity gospel and gross theology of glory: Facing the Giants). Well, first, I was interested in seeing Fireproof because it actually did quite well in the box-office. This piqued my interest; I want to know a) what evangelicals are calling a good movie, and b) what our culture is viewing as a representation of Christianity.

Secondly, I was particularly interested to see it because of the subject matter: marriage. This is unquestionably the reason for the film's popularity. People - believers or unbelievers - are desperate to gain wisdom and any spiritual secrets to improve their marriages (which, as we all know, can often be pretty messy).

In brief, my thoughts on the film are as follows:

THE CONS:

• Bad acting. I mean, really bad. Actually, Cameron is not that bad (believe it or not), but most of the cast is painfully awful. Then again, most of these people are not professional actors, but volunteers from an evangelical church associated with the film makers. If the viewer knows that up front, a lot of the poor acting can be forgiven. Then it's sort of like watching Keanu Reeves play every role, and without pay.
• Unrealistic characters. The main character's Christian parents look like they stepped out of a Thomas Kinkade painting. They have that sort of "different beings" flavor to them, which evangelicals seem to love. Moreover, while I realize that evangelicals want to make movies that are "clean" and have virtually no swearing, this simply does not depict reality. It's hard to believe that violent arguments between two unbelievers frustrated in their marriage would not be peppered with colorful language. It doesn't have to be a machine gun firing the F-bomb, but make it believable. And overweight firefighters? C'mon. Don't tell me the South is THAT much different than California. I have never seen an overweight firefighter in my life.
• Presents Christianity as the solution to a bad marriage.The reality is that there are plenty of unbelievers who are happily married (relatively speaking). This is because marriage is a creational, pre-Fall institution that belongs to the realm of common grace, not redemption. Marriage (that is, a lifelong, monogomous covenant between one man and one woman) is for all people, not merely Christians. Chances are there is an unbelieving married couple on your street who have a pretty good marriage, due to their relationship being marked with mutual service, love and devotion. Conversely, there are plenty of Christian marriages that look like the one depicted at the beginning of the movie (i.e. characterized by selfishness, unforgiveness, anger, and bitterness), due to the Christian couple refusing to get over themselves and grow up. So, this is very misleading. And unbelievers are not so stupid that they can't pick up on this. Just read the reviews of this film.
• Presents a theology of glory. More of the above. Unfortunately, the message preached (and I mean preached) in this movie inevitably comes across to say, "Become a Christian and the circumstances of your life will improve." Well, that is a) not true and b) not a valid reason for becoming a Christian. Read 1 Corinthians 15. The only valid reason for becoming a Christian is that the message of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is TRUE, not that it offers the spiritual magic to have your best life right now.
• Presents a "40-day plan" as the fix-it to marriage. The father of "Caleb," who strangely looks a lot like a thinner version of "Pastor Chuck" of Calvary Chapel fame, urges his son to take the "Love Dare," that is, 40 days of law-keeping designed to transform his life and marriage. While there is a lot of wisdom in the challenge, this misrepresents Christianity; a married couple does not need a bloody Savior on a cross in order to apply law-principles to their relationship.
• The role of the local church is altogether absent. For preaching Christianity in a film, the role of the local church, the means of grace, discipleship, church discipline, is mysteriously absent. Well, mysteriously absent, I suppose, to Reformational Christians. For most evangelicals, ecclesiology is the mystery. Christianity often comes down to you and your personal God-expereince.

THE PROS:

• It presents marriage as a lifelong covenant. Despite the theology of glory stuff, this film got a few things right about marriage and said some things that people desperately need to hear, namely, that marriage is a lifelong covenant. Of course, the film didn't take the time to explain what a covenant is (!), which is rather typical of evangelical assumption of theology, but it did, at least, make very clear the fact that marriage and the vows taken in the ceremony are for life. People - Christian or non-Christian - are hungry to hear this. We know that this is right by nature. Why else is divorce so painful?
• It points out a lot of wisdom for marriage. Forgiveness, love, devotion, service, holding one's tongue, etc. These are the basic principles of any good marriage, and it is helpful to watch two actors struggling through this in a movie. But again, these aren't strictly Christian principles; they are creational and stamped on the conscience. To love one's spouse is law. To love is to do. Granted, the difference for the Christian is that law-keeping is motivated by the Gospel and enpowered by the Holy Spirit who is renewing the believer in the image of God. But the principles themselves apply to everyone. The wisdom presented in the film (i.e. Caleb learns to stop being a selfish jerk to his wife, and begins to look outside of himself to serve her) is great stuff for which all human beings are hard-wired by nature.
• Shows the sin and failure in both the husband and wife. The film not only depicts "Caleb," the main character, as being a moral failure by viewing internet porn and thereby deeply hurting his wife, but it also shows her moral failure by accepting advances from a co-worker and being flirtatious. In fairness, though, the writers could have done a better job in showing how the latter is as much a violation of the covenant of marriage as the former, if not far more.
• It actually preached the first use of the law at one point. Perhaps this was due to Cameron's association with Ray Comfort, but the film, at one point, actually pointed out that God requires a perfect keeping of the law, of which no one is able. Unfortunately, this was not followed up with a robust explanation of Christ's work. Again, the worn-out, seldomly understood phrase, "Jesus died for your sins," was tossed out there without explanation. Next thing you know, Caleb tells a Christian co-worker, "Hey, I'm in." So, his conversion begins Protestant, but quickly shifts to the Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism with which our culture is so familar. But, hey, what can we expect from a "Christian" movie, or anything that tries to redeem the arts for that matter?

Is it worth watching? IMO, not really. In all honesty, I was motivated to be a faithful and honorable husband to my wife far more watching Russell Crowe's character "Maximus" in Ridley Scott's Gladiator. And it is a lot easier watching a first-century Roman general pray pagan prayers in his synchretist religion of ancestor worship than watching Christianity get presented as a theology of glory by people who profess to be Christians. While there is a lot of practical wisdom regarding marriage in this movie, you can get the same thing (and sometimes a lot better) from films that do what the arts are designed to do: depict life and entertain.

OK, since I am taking hits from the film critics over my post from last week, I thought I would post the greatest hypocrisy scene of all time, hands down: Michael Corleone having his son baptized and taking vows of faith while the hits he ordered on other mob bosses were simultaneously carried out. Fogetaboutit, nothing even comes close!

(DISCLAIMER: this clip contains violence, albeit a la 1972 and quite mild by today's standards. This is NOT for children! Consider yourself warned.)