Religulous: A Movie To Be Taken Seriously...Or Not?

A couple of nights ago, the wife and I sat down to watch Bill Maher's latest film titled "Religulous". The movie was thought-provoking in a number of ways and was quite humorous at points. The style and presentation made the movie engaging and watchful. Yet, it was Maher's tact that made me take "Religulous" with a grain of salt.

What I mean is, Maher basically fed his anti-theist presuppositions or better yet, frustrations with Christianity (the movie does question Judaism and Islam at points as well!) by interviewing certain types of people in certain types of places. There were billions of places and millions of people he could have went to for better information but he didn't! For example, Maher found it necesarry to go looking for answers at truck stop chapels and amusement parks, word of faith churches and other such places. In other words, he went to places where he knew he wouldn't get sound answers and people would most likely look silly when sharing their thoughts.

It all made me think of Lee Strobel's attempts to disprove Christianity a number of years ago. However, Strobel didn't go to the least educated and the biblically illiterate, no, he went to people who had devoted their lives to studying, interpreting and acknowledging the scope and implications of Scripture. To be sure, Strobel didn't want to settle for the typical, run-of-the-mill answer, instead, he thought that if he could knock Christianity's top scholars off of their feet, he could then destroy the heart (and mind!) of Christianity.

Yet, Maher did not do this. Again, he only went to places where he could make a mockery of Christianity and some of its tenets. I wonder if he had taken an approach similar to Strobel's, if he would have come to a similar conclusion? As you may know, after interviewing Christianity's top scholars, Strobel no longer demeaned the faith, instead, he embraced it. Today, Strobel is a scholar in his own right and heavily promotes sound Christian thinking.

So, while Maher's film had some good critiques and good humor, in the end, I only find myself laughing at his shallow approach and I have to say, "Too bad for him; what a waste of a search and what a waste of a film!"

**UPDATE** I was asked on Facebook, shortly after I wrote thist post, who, in terms of scholars, Strobel interviewed. So, below I've added a list of persons he's interviewed in his books. He's interviewed countless more people on-air and on TV. Notice how this list makes Maher's interviews at truck stops and amusement parks just look totally foolish!!!

* Dr. Robert J. Stein
* Dr. Alexander Metherell
* Dr. William Lane Craig
* Dr. Gary Habermas
* Dr. Craig Blomberg
* Dr. Bruce Metzger
* Dr. Edwin Yamauchi
* Dr. John McRay
* Dr. Greg Boyd
* Dr. Ben Witherington, III
* Dr. Gary Collins
* Dr. Douglas A. Carson
* Dr. J. P. Moreland
* Dr. Jonathan Wells
* Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
* Dr. Robin Collins
* Dr. Jay W. Richards
* Dr. Michael J. Behe
* Louis Lapides, MDiv, ThM

Step Brothers - A Brief Review (no spoilers)

Last year, Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly paired up in the redneck racing flick, Talladega Nights. Honestly, I didn't see that movie because the previews pretty much gave the script away. Just as well, I was burned out on Will Ferrell (he's pretty much the same character in every movie!). Well, I decided to try my fortune with him in his latest film, another with Reilly, Step Brothers.

I don't want to give a thorough synopsis of the movie here but I do want to say a few things. Firstly, if I had to describe this film in one word, it would be "raunchy". Seriously, this is straight-up one of the raunchiest films I've ever seen. At the beginning of the show, there are a few jokes about penises and vaginas. 45 minutes later, more of the same. 45 minutes after that, more of the same. Combine all of the genitalia jokes with the tremendous amount of cursing, forced restroom and underwear humor and anyone with a shred of decency feels like they need absolution via water afterwards...or at least a civil adult conversation.

Secondly, while this film does have some funny parts, I think the trailers were misleading. Commercials made this movie out to seem quite wholesome; nothing could be further from the truth. This movie amounts to nothing more than profanity and a mockery of good parenting. Sadly, the plot of the film probably plays out in too many families today.

Thirdly, I'm sick of seeing Will Ferrell play the same character in almost all of his movies (the same goes for Steve Carrell...whom Ferrell was actually chosen over for a position on SNL). I'm also tired of seeing him move into hokey comedic roles instead of ones that are "actually" really funny. All-in-all, the makers of this film tried too hard to be funny. They went over-the-top and in the process, dropped the ball. I wouldn't reccommend this movie to anyone and it certainly not suitable for youth. Spend your time and money somewhere else!

Theology, Ethics & "Rambo"

(No spoilers) I grew up watching Rocky and Rambo movies. However, when I went to see the latest Rambo flick, I was shocked. Not only was this different than the Rambos I had previously seen, it was nothing like it (the Rambo website was spot-on when it said, "This Rambo makes all the others seem enchanted.")! Well, the plot and premise of the film were similar but no Rambo flick, or any other movie I have ever seen, were or are as graphic and violent as this one. The movie starts off a little slow but picks up really fast and from there, it never slows down. Once Rambo starts killing, well, that's all that happens.

The violence in this film is unmatchable. The close-ups of beheadings, murders, stabbings, gunshots, bomb blasts, lynchings, etc. are straight gory. After the show I told my buddy who went along with me, "It's pretty bad when Rambo can wipe out half of the theather too." It's true, many people who were in the theater cleared out halfway through the movie becuase it was too sickening and violent. While it all happens in the world today and it is quite realistic, that doesn't mean people enjoy watching it. I was suprised that I made it through the whole thing. This movie is certainly not for the faint of heart. It's like Stallone--who wrote and produced the film--got as gruesome as he possibly could. He gave new meaning to the phrase "go out with a bang".

Without spoiling the movie (actually, the plot and premise are very simple), I want to explore a number of issues this film raised for me:

1. The movie takes place in-between modern-day Thailand and Burma (precisely near where they border). Rambo lives in Thailand and some Christian missionaries ask him to drop them off near a local village where they can take medicines in Burma. Eventually, Rambo does. However, the missionaries are captured and placed under the tyrrany of a Burmanese army; Rambo must go rescue them. In the process, he kills hundreds of Burmese soldiers. Given that the movie starts out with clips of Burmese monks protesting, which happened just months ago, I couldn't help but think that if anyone in Burma saw this film, they would hate America. The movie does nothing but show Rambo wiping out a bunch of Burmese people. I wonder if this wasn't the wrong time to put this film out? I also wonder why it didn't catch any political heat? Is it okay, even if only in a movie, to show Americans wiping out other nations?

2. Was it ethical for the Christians to go in, knowing that if they got in trouble American troops would have to try to recover them, all the while risking life and limb? Should Christians abstain from these types of things and wait them out or should they warn the U.S. Army (or whoever), not to try to save them? I think this is a serious ethical issue for missionaries today.

3. This movie made me realize that God hates war, murder and killing. It also made me realize that I will not vote for someone like John McCain who during his campaign sang to the tune of "Barbara Anne", the lyrics, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, bomb Ira-a-a-an" and said, "Let's stay in Iraq for fifty, heck a hundred years." War should be avoided at all costs. This movie really brought out the pacifist in me. But it also raised another issue that troubles me: Is it more loving to let people be raped, tortured and killed or is it more loving to use force, kill the tyrants and free the victims? I'm not sure.

4. Another issue that came up was "whose life is most valuable?". I mean, is the Burmese soldier's life worth less than the American's or visa versa? In a war, that is the choice that is made. But who are we to decide who is more valuable or not? Aren't we all of equal worth in God's eyes? Is the Christian more valuable than the Burmese soldier? Is the Thai migrant more valuable than the missionary?

5. Is it okay to portray the film with the amount and substance of gore that Stallone did? Is it unethical to show these types of things in films?

6. The film almost pictures Rambo in the role of a very violent savior, especially the end when he returns to his roots (don't want to say any more on that, it would be a spoiler). Is this okay? Does it further the mentality that war and weapons, soldiers and warriors are our saviors? I think it could!

7. With the title "Rambo To Hell and Back" and a setting in Thailand/Burma, viewers automatically associate Asia with Hell. This does not seem okay to me. Neither do I think it would have been right to place it in America or anywhere else. If anything, a "fake" location would have been best. In an era where war and terrorism, fighting and national battles are prevalent, a fictive setting would have been the most appropriate. What do you think?

I could say more about the film but I'll stop there. I must say again that this film shocked me. I would probably not recommend it to anyone. It is not a wholesome film and it has the potential to make people, even Christians, place trust in guns and bombs instead of Jesus Christ. There is even a line where one soldier says, "God didn't come to save you, we did." In my eyes, I could never picture Jesus advocating war or running around throwing grenades and shooting people. There is a reason this film is called "To Hell and Back" and that's what we get when we go into and stay in wars--hell! Perhaps the only two good things about this movie were that it raised a lot of ethical/theological questions for me and that it gave me more resolve on the end of pacifism. After all, Jesus did not say, "Blessed are those who kill" but instead, "Blessed are the peacemakers".