14 replies to this topic

[Speilb]

I saw part of the preview - I was very concerned.   I believe with a name like "Son of God" and with its claims portray Jesus, we cannot give it a mixed review.  We cannot say, "It was mostly true but had some error".  The best lies often contain 80 to 99% truth.  I heard one quote from the christ figure in the movie saying to Peter "give me an hour and I will change your life".  I think there is something profoundly wrong with that.  I am terrified by Revelation 22:18-20 which speaks judgement on all who would alter the Word of God (no matter what the purpose -including creative license). 

I would love to hear your thoughts not only on the movie but how to address it with churches and with people who look to us for leadership. 

[Julie Daube]

I am praying that God will use the film to draw viewers to Himself despite its flaws. After all, He once used a donkey to speak truth. ;-) This may be the only introduction many lost people will ever have to the Person of Jesus. For those who would never enter a church, this could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to engage them in a conversation about Jesus.

Our church is using the movie as an outreach tool, purchasing the tickets of any unsaved friends whom members invite and bring to the film. I think an effective way to address the movie would be to encourage believers to see it with unchurched friends and then initiate a discussion afterward. If there are problematic scenes where something in the Word of God has been altered, believers could bring that up and say, "Remember when Jesus said such-and-such? Well, in the Bible He actually said this..." Then the person could say, "What do you think of that?" or, "If that's true, what are the implications?" Such a dialogue could naturally pave the way to presenting the gospel. In my opinion, this is too good an opportunity to pass up.

[Chris Tschamler]

Is there anyone who has seen the movie in full who'd be willing to comment here? I've read one unfavorable review online claiming many inaccuracies, and I'd love to hear your thoughts about the movie. What things stood out to you as inaccurate? If any, how egregious are the errancies, and are they of enough concern to discredit the entire thing?

 

Speilb, I understand your point about any errancies at all being too many, and I also understand the concept of deceit mixed with truth being as problematic as 100% deceit. But I also think there's a difference between fallible human hands creating imperfect work, and intentional deception designed to mislead. After hearing a couple interviews with the creators/producers, I came away with a sense of their genuine desire to represent Christ well and to bring Him glory by their work. Just like everything I do, it's not perfect, but Sovereign God can use it for His good and His glory.

 

i guess I'm with Julie. I'm reminded that our sovereign God works in a sinful world, often using man's disobedience and sin to accomplish His divine plan and bring Himself glory (think: a murderous crowd unjustly and sinfully killing Jesus . . . yet God). I'm so thankful that God, in His mercy, chooses to use us despite our fallen natures. I pray that He likewise uses this movie to bring many to Himself (perfectly accurate or not).

[Julie Daube]

"I'm reminded that our sovereign God works in a sinful world, often using man's disobedience and sin to accomplish His divine plan and bring Himself glory (think: a murderous crowd unjustly and sinfully killing Jesus . . . yet God). I'm so thankful that God, in His mercy, chooses to use us despite our fallen natures. I pray that He likewise uses this movie to bring many to Himself (perfectly accurate or not)."

Well said, Chris!

[Kenny]

I haven't seen any of The Son of God but last night I did watch quite a bit of The Bible which came from the same people who now give us The Son of God. I did notice that in the movie The Bible that many liberties with Scripture were taken, therefore I wouldn't be surprised at all if the same thing is true of the Son of God. Yet I can see how God can still use imperfect medium to draw people to Christ Jesus. I feel safe in saying as much since God initially used the imperfect medium of The Living Bible (a paraphrased version of the Bible) to draw me to Christ 25 years ago. I have learned that we shouldn't try to put God in a box and dictate which mediums He is or isn't able to make use of. The God I have come to know can use any medium He chooses.

[DonnaA]

They definitely take liberties.

 

My understanding is that Roma D. is into new age and channeled her mother on a talk show?? I might be wrong, but I find it odd that new agers would be so into a Bible series/movie like Son of God. Then again ....

 

 

The new Noah movie took more than liberties, but I want to see it and plan to discuss the differences in scripture to hollywood's version ... it can be an open door, but only so long as we know the Truth and are ready to share it.

[Candice]

Is there anyone who has seen the movie in full who'd be willing to comment here? I've read one unfavorable review online claiming many inaccuracies, and I'd love to hear your thoughts about the movie. What things stood out to you as inaccurate? If any, how egregious are the errancies, and are they of enough concern to discredit the entire thing?
 
Speilb, I understand your point about any errancies at all being too many, and I also understand the concept of deceit mixed with truth being as problematic as 100% deceit. But I also think there's a difference between fallible human hands creating imperfect work, and intentional deception designed to mislead. After hearing a couple interviews with the creators/producers, I came away with a sense of their genuine desire to represent Christ well and to bring Him glory by their work. Just like everything I do, it's not perfect, but Sovereign God can use it for His good and His glory.
 
i guess I'm with Julie. I'm reminded that our sovereign God works in a sinful world, often using man's disobedience and sin to accomplish His divine plan and bring Himself glory (think: a murderous crowd unjustly and sinfully killing Jesus . . . yet God). I'm so thankful that God, in His mercy, chooses to use us despite our fallen natures. I pray that He likewise uses this movie to bring many to Himself (perfectly accurate or not).

Hi Chris,
I saw the movie yesterday. Is it the "whole truth and nothing but the truth"? No. It's not the whole truth. Of course, lots is missing and what happens is certainly not in order. Inaccuracies were there, but I would not say that anything was so agregious as to make me shutter. As a believer who's read the scriptures many times, and still doesn't know it all by any stretch, I can see these numerous "errors" as editorial requirements for the most part and can give grace because the overall main facts are there. It's hard to squeeze every word Jesus said and his disciples said into a 2 1/2 hour movie. So, I give them that they tried on a low budget to get all the facts in. I'd say they stuck with the Apostles' Creed. Facts as best as they could.

My neighbors were there and one of the daughters who is 16 years old, told me after the movie that she was bawling! OK. There you go. I'm sure if someone is saved because of this movie - even one person, it was worth the millions to produce it and market it. I think if you had 2 and 1/2 hours to share The Gospel, you'd miss parts and be a bit inaccurate. So would I. So would we all!

[Kevin Blankenship]

No red flags Candace?  (joking with ya)

[Fred McClure]

I saw the movie. I also read information about the folks that brought it forward. She is heavily into Necromancy and has publicly channelled her Mom. That raises many red flags for me. Can good fruit come from a bad tree? But there is also you meant it for bad, God meant it for good. There is no mention of repentance anywhere in the film. Some of the mistakes are obvious, such as Mary traveling with Jesus and the twelve. You have to wonder why it was told that way. I believe the message is New Age

[Meema]

I have wanted to comment on this but I’ve waited until I could say something that was more significant than my opinion about whether a movie is inspired of God or not.

 

Tozer said:

 

The Danger of Modifying the Good News

Our constant effort should be to reach as many persons as possible with the Christian message, and for that reason numbers are critically important. But our first responsibility is not to make converts but to uphold the honor of God in a world given over to the glory of fallen man. No matter how many persons we touch with the gospel we have failed unless, along with the message of invitation, we have boldly declared the exceeding sinfulness of man and the transcendent holiness of the Most High God. They who degrade or compromise the truth in order to reach larger numbers, dishonor God and deeply injure the souls of men.

The temptation to modify the teachings of Christ with the hope that larger numbers may "accept" Him is cruelly strong in this day of speed, size, noise and crowds. But if we know what is good for us, we'll resist it with every power at our command. To yield can only result in a weak and ineffective Christianity in this generation, and death and desolation in the next. 

I’ve always understood that I am a sower not a reaper and therefore I rarely have the joy of witnessing the harvest of anything I have ever sown. But worse than that I am, more often than not, called upon to say the tough words that gentle Christians think but can’t or won’t say. Words that offend and challenge modern humanistic sensibilities. Trust me this does not win me many friends. 

 

But I am well suited to this because I don’t have to be perceived as right, I just want to see good results. If I am compelled to say something that cuts deep, causes ire and rouses indignation, then I have likely pierced into the root of something that needs to be addressed. I don’t do it to hurt, I do it to shed light into dark corners. Generally speaking, I get push back and resentment. My only response is always, “Then prove me wrong.”

 

This, then, is the challenge issued as a call to rise up and do differently or wallow in enmity hating the messenger in order to ignore the message.

 

I am not a prophet nor have I ever claimed to be, but I am telling anyone who is willing to pay attention, there are dark seeds planted in our soil in every conceivable way possible. They grow up looking like wheat but they are only tares. They are really good facsimiles, imitators, but they  cannot bear fruit. Yes, God can turn that which was created for evil into good, but why should He have to? Are we not the watchmen on the wall? Are we not supposed to be ever alert to every assault, big and minuscule? 

 

So, here are the tough words that most don’t want to say or hear: 

 

What is it we quest for beyond what we have already received? If we are still looking, still thirsty, have we really sipped the living water? If we dabble and seek more but in all the wrong places and then make excuses for our dabbling are we not making ourselves wide open and vulnerable to following after another, better Jesus? Is this what is meant by having our candlestick removed, or by hearing the words behind the closed door, “I never knew ye.”? 

 

Saying the hard words is a tough job but someone has to do it. In this  era of touchy-feely Christianity the hard words, those said by Christ Himself, are being replaced with something less offensive but much more deadly.  

 

For Christ,

Meema

 

(Revelation 2:1) To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, he that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks:  (2:2) I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst find them false;  (2:3) and thou hast patience and didst bear for my name's sake, and hast not grown weary.  (2:4) But I have [this] against thee, that thou didst leave thy first love.  (2:5) Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent.  (2:6) But this thou hast, that thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.  (2:7) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. To him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God.

[Speilb]

Very interesting. Somehow, I think this went a way that I never intended or expected.  Please understand that it was never my thought or intention to say that somehow this movie was out of God’s control and that he was incapable of using it for His glory that is not my belief at all.  The question isn’t if He can use it but how we as Christians should respond.  I guess I didn’t make that distinction very well. 

 

Also please understand that I am one of those people that are very radical about preserving the word of God.  My 4 year old daughter came to me other day while I was hurrying to make a deadline.  She said, “Daddy, He whose face is righteous shall live”.  I stopped what I was doing and said “I think you might mean, ‘The righteous will live by faith”.  She said, no that’s not it.  As we talked I found out that she had gotten the quote from her Martin Luther book she likes to read – but we couldn’t find it.  So we had to pray that God would help us find it, and I believe God was pleased with our quest and as soon as we were done praying my daughter went right to were the book was hiding.  I think we can say about the producer of the movie that “there face is righteous” but there theology seems to be influenced highly by both Catholicism and New Age.  My standards are extremely high for anyone undertaking to produce a movie about Jesus.  I believe those who produced “The Jesus” film were terrified of the task and I know they really prayed about things like how they should portray Satan.  Furthermore, if I am not in agreement with the underlying worldview on which their depiction is based I will be very careful and if they either take from or add to what scripture says I will avoid it completely. 

 

I believe that God can use two film makers with a history in the New Age movement to accomplish His Purposes.  I can join Julie in saying “I am praying that God will use the film to draw viewers to Himself despite its flaws.”  God can and does use even the works of our enemy to bring glory to himself; yet I don’t believe that He cohabitates with falsehood (he can use lies but He is not in them).  Maybe God will use this film by calling believers to rise up and take up the calling to vigorously preserve the word of God and revive such callings as “sola scriptura”.  Couldn’t that be a possibility as well? 

 

I also fully believe that God can and did use a donkey.  I have nothing but praise for that donkey on a job well done.  I would literally travel across the world to hear from a donkey being used of God as Balaam’s.  Chris also made a similar point.  Please know that I am fully convinced that God used Nero, Marx, Buddha, Michael Jackson, Oprah, Freud, the Clintons, Gandhi, Robert Schuller, A.B. Simpson, A.W. Tozer, Ravi, and Putin for His Glory.  I will cross land and sea to hear from that donkey give a word from God to me, but I will not cross over crack in street to hear Freud lecture on and on about how for him a cigar is just a cigar but for everyone else it is something different.  That doesn’t mean that I think Freud cannot be used for God’s purposes, I just believe it is wise for me to fill my head with his falsehood.   In the same way I would not send anyone hear a message from a “devout catholic” with a history in the New Age movement as they describe Jesus.  Secondly we are also making a trusting relationship between the unredeemed and the religious teachers who are responsible for this movie.  I don’t trust them that much.  I think with Mel Gibson the Evangelical church endorsed him as an Evangelical and the world was quick to say “you claimed him as a righteous man” every time he got drunk and said racist or anti-Semitic things.  But his movie was much closer to the “original script”.

 

When we say “This may be the only introduction many lost people will ever have to the Person of Jesus” I see where your coming from.  Yet, as I stated earlier I would not recommend they go. I also don’t think our failure to reach people means we should outsource to those we cannot trust.   I worry also that in making significant changes to the Word of God we risk compromising it and losing its power.  The power of God is best released through the wisdom of God which is by human accounts foolishness.  We have to trust God and distribute his word as it was given to us and not try to update or modernize it in anyway. 

 

I will not deny, that it might be a chance to engage people in a conversation but that doesn’t mean we should bring them to this movie.  There are many conversations we can engage people in.  In the area of film we have had many other that have been billed as great opportunities such as “The Last Temptation of Christ”, “The Passion of the Christ”, “The Da Vinci Code” and an absolutely massive number that address spiritual issues.  Also I believe there have been many things movie productions that have been billed as great opportunities for the church but have not panned out.    

 

For the 5 people who are still reading, let me say Old John McArthur, Allister Begg both stand with me on this one according to people that work in their offices and I think we can clearly say A.W. would have as well with his views on the Hollywood of his day is all considered the utmost in wholesome entertainment by our current standards.  So if someone could tell archives to place a thumbs up on my original post for Tozer that would be wonderful (I will put a quote by him a little later). 

 

More seriously for the 4 people who are still reading, We live in an age where “re-runs become our history” and movies often present “hyper-reality” which weighs heavier than reality for many.  Jesus fought against those who would bend the Bible.  I can already tell you I have heard a youth leader advertising “give me a weekend and I will change your life” which is one word away from a direct quote from "jesus" in the movie.    

 

For the three people who are still reading.  If I presented the story of Jesus calling Peter to a group of Bible believing Christians with their Bible’s open they would be confused by me telling them about how Jesus said to Peter, “we are going to change the world” or “give me an hour and I will change your life”.  They would get quite angry at me and I feel they are right and that I should do the same. 

 

Finally, as to the idea of human fallibility that Chris mentioned; I think this is why few should undertake to be teachers.  The movie producers have undertaken to be teachers and the standards went up very high for them.  From the trailer alone they added and subtracted to the word of God and that is a serious offense against God. 

[Speilb]

Revelation 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

 

No-one addressed this verse in their post so I will include it again.  I believe it is a dangerous task to present the word of God.  I don't want to present wrongly or join with anyone else in their wrong presentation. 

 

2 Corinthians 4:1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, 2but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. 6For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

 

 

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

      10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

 

To be "accursed" of God that is terrifying and keeps me up at nights as I prepare to teach the Word of God.  With these verses in hand we should with great fear ask "Do I want to join with the movie and its producers by adding my endorsement?"

[Speilb]

Here is some word of Tozer that I feel apply. I think we are trying to win souls at the price of holding God and His word with absolute reverence.

But we need the the glory of God again. And the returning of the glory of God to the Church is the primary imperative, absolutely necessary. It is even more important than the salvation of souls.

But God, in His great love, has so ordered that when His glory returns, more souls will be converted as a result. So you don't have to take your choice. It isn't an either-or; it's a both and. And the trying to get souls saved at the expense of the glory of God is to cheat God out of His glory and not get souls saved anyhow. We just make proselytes who aren't Christians, but something else.

The first prayer Jesus taught His disciples, the first corporate prayer, begins, "Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name." Jesus said, in other words the hallowing of the name of God is more important than anything else; therefore, always see to it that you pray first that the glory of God might be revealed.

"...hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done."

God first my bretheren.

You see we are all humanist to a great degree now. Evangelicals have backslidden until it is humanism with a biblical veneeer. But we want not humanism; we want Christianity of Bible kind. And Christianity never begins with man.

Christianity begins with God, and then looks around for man. Humanism begins with man and after a while looks around for God. We have gotten to that place. We begin with man: what man thinks, what man says, and what we want to do for man. But, the glory of God must always come first "Hallowed be Thy name."

I pray more for this than I pray for anything else That the glory of God might be revealed again to this generation, so the Presence of God will be so overwhelming, so humiliating, so humbling, so wonderful, so glorious that it will turn us wrong side out and all our thought-up jokes will go down the drain and all our self-confidence will disappear and we will stand or kneel or fall down in the presence of this Holy God and cry, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty".

Now, remember you can have all your plans you want and you can get the help of all the advertisers and all the modern, mechanical gadgets, but when it is all done, you'll fall short unless first God is glorified in the midst of His Church.

[Kevin Blankenship]

Some great points are brought up. I just read them all. They all have merit. Perhaps I'll simply re-read the Gospel account of Jesus in one of the 4 gospels. Probably  "Mark" today. Just finished "Luke".   Great replies to all!!!!  PEACE!

[radar]

I am back after no power since early Friday due to ice storm damage. I was leery of this movie since I watched the Bible mini series on the History channel and saw the "artistic liberties" that were taken there, with the angels and Sodom and Gomorrah coming to mind. I also know that Ms Angel Wings who produced that and this movie with her husband have lots of Catholic Maryisms spin on it since Ms Downy is a Roman Catholic. I was planning on not seeing the movie until....

 

My son, who will not have anything to do with Jesus or religion, asked me to go with him to watch the movie. So, I went, and of course, I could not contain myself when half scriptures were cut short and I went on to finish them. Seemed not to have bothered anyone in the theater. Nor did anyone seem to mind that as the film went on, I would point out the errors to my son and give him the correct information during the movie. But the overall effect was it sparked a discussion with my son who has for years thwarted any attempts on my part to share the Gospel with him.

 

Hopefully, others may have had opportunities like I did with their friends and loved ones in sparking interest with the non believing world. I look at it now as sort of a missionary opportunity. Many people will go to the holy church of hollywood who would not otherwise go to a Christian church at all. Having Christians available to contend for the Gospel as Julie pointed out by going to the movie is one way we can reach those who have enough interest to want to see what the Son of God is all about. I pretty much agree with everything that has been pointed out good and bad on this thread. I just wanted to add how it opened a door with my son for me that I would not have had if it were not for the movie.

 

Besides, everyone knows that a any movie cannot rival a book. My hope and prayer is in this case it will cause others to read THE LIVING BOOK themselves and the Holy Spirit will do the rest!

 

Shalom,

radar