Introducing “Phantastes” by George MacDonald

Tags

, , ,

Phantastes

“I have never concealed the fact that I regarded [George MacDonald] as my master; indeed I fancy I have never written a book in which I did not quote from him.” – C.S. Lewis

The singularity of George MacDonald’s extraordinary novel Phantastes (1858) will have most readers struggling to find comparisons. It is unlike anything I have ever read. If I had to liken it to something, it would be The Narnia Chronicles (interestingly, the first appearance of fairyland in Phantastes manifests itself in a piece of furniture), The Lord of the Rings or Alice in Wonderland (1865); it’s no wonder then, that Lewis and Tolkien were influenced by MacDonald.

What one might call a “fairy tale for grown ups,” Phantastes feels like “escapist” literature in that its unearthly and yet strangely reminiscent atmosphere elicits a sense of nostalgia and longing in the reader. It is a difficult world to leave. The story flows like a dream, but not a postmodern, arbitrary stream of consciousness meant to disorient the reader. On the contrary, the narrative of Phantastes is quite coherent, and written in true 19th-century-English-gentleman spirit. Phantastes is unmistakeably Victorian.

As mentioned, George MacDonald greatly influenced C. S. Lewis, not only in terms of literary genre but regarding his faith as well. C. S. Lewis credits Phantastes with first softening his heart to consider the possibility of the existence of God. MacDonald was a minister of a dissenting chapel in England, and, although Phantastes contains no overt mention of God, themes of faith and sin pervade the narrative, but they are expressed in the context of fairyland. MacDonald also published many sermons, including “The Hope of the Gospel.” His fantasy novels remain the most well-known of his works, however, and contribute to the enormously diverse array of literary genres from the 19th century.

 

 

 

Faith vs. Works in “Aurora Leigh” by Elizabeth Barrett Browning

Tags

, , ,

“But we, distracted in the roar of life,
Still insolently at God’s adverb snatch,
And bruit [spread rumour] against Him that His thought is void,
His meaning hopeless – cry, that everywhere
The government is slipping from his hand,
Unless some other Christ, (say Romney Leigh)
Come up and toil and moil and change the world,
Because the First has proved inadequate,
However we talk bigly [highly] of His work
And piously of His person. We blaspheme
At last, to finish our doxology,
Despairing on the earth for which He died.” – Aurora Leigh

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.          – Hebrews 11:6

Sometimes we are deceived into thinking the questions of our age are unique to ours alone, and that they mark a progression of human thought over the centuries. However, issues which concern us today, such as social justice and social welfare, preoccupied the Victorians just as much (as evidenced by books such as Aurora Leigh) as they sought to ameliorate the detestable working and living conditions of the lower classes. In Christian spheres, both today and in the 1800s, the issue of social justice becomes a theological one, and not a peripheral debate, either; our view on good works reflects our understanding of the gospel and the role of Jesus Christ in our salvation. How much are we responsible for curing social ills? Are we doubting the sovereignty of God by fretting over our works? Could it be blasphemy to do so, as Barrett Browning writes?

The question especially close to Barrett Browning’s heart in Aurora Leigh is the role of the artist – the contemplator of God, his creation and the people he populated it with. How productive is art, and by extension, faith, in a hungry and starving world? These questions are older than our age or the Victorians’; they go back to the Bible and its discussion of faith vs. works. Every age since the Bible has wrestled with (or settled) this issue differently, some weighing down heavily on one side or the other. For many Victorians confronted with the suffering brought about by the industrial revolution, particularly the Christian socialists and the Unitarians (such as Elizabeth Gaskell), their theology, which perceived Jesus’ primary work on the cross as exemplary, rather than atoning, provided the impetus for their emphasis on charity and education for the poor, i.e. good works.

That said, Gaskell’s social problem novel Mary Barton includes a noticeable lack of practical suggestions for fixing society and instead relies on scriptural exegesis, namely 1 Corinthians 12, which promotes a united body guided by the spirit of Christ, for her solution to the class divide. Her exegesis belies her value of faith; she can’t help but bring God into a discussion of evil and suffering, and prioritize the reconciliation of society with its heavenly Father and brothers and sisters in Christ before social reform. And can a novel, a work of art (an oxymoron?), really constitute a “good work” anyway? Which brings us back to Aurora Leigh, which tries to marry the two sides of the salvation coin – faith and works.

I am reminded of Mark 14, where the disciples harshly criticize a woman for wasting beautiful-smelling perfume that “could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor” by pouring it over Jesus’ feet. Rebuking them, Jesus calls her effort “beautiful.” Also, the many verses commanding us to daily praise the Lord and to continually contemplate his law come to mind. Faith is our upward expression, toward heaven, through our praises, thanksgiving, prayers, repentance and contemplation, and works are our outward expression, toward our fellow human beings, and they include charity, kindness, feeding the poor, caring for orphans, forgiveness, intercessory prayer and so on; even these, we do to please God. We need both the poet (Aurora Leigh) and the philanthropist (Romney Leigh), the former to inspire our faith and the latter to move us to action. We know the Bible clearly delineates that faith and works cannot be separated, because the the latter is evidence of the former; however, faith always comes first, which I believe is the central message of Aurora Leigh. We are justified by faith first, when Christ first grips our soul, and then works follow, as we seek to follow in his footsteps. I leave you with the following arresting illustration from Aurora Leigh:

“‘Tis impossible
To get at men excepting through their souls,
However open their carnivorous jaws;
And poets get directlier at the soul,
Than any of you oeconomists:–for which,
You must not overlook the poet’s work
When scheming for the world’s necessities.
The soul’s the way. Not even Christ himself
Can save man else than as He hold man’s soul;
And therefore did He come into our flesh,
As some wise hunter creeping on his knees
With a torch, into the blackness of some cave,
To face and quell the beast there,–take the soul,
And so possess the whole man, body and soul.” – Aurora Leigh

______________________________

Some more quotes from Aurora Leigh worth pondering:

“Art is much, but love is more.
O Art, my Art, thou’rt much, but Love is more!
Art symbolises heaven, but Love is God”

 

“Verily I was wrong;
And verily, many thinkers of this age,
Ay, many Christian teachers, half in heaven,
Are wrong in just my sense, who understood
Our natural world too insularly, as if
No spiritual counterpart completed it
Consummating its meaning, rounding all
To justice and perfection, line by line,
Form by form, nothing single, nor alone,–
The great below clenched by the great above;
Shade here authenticating substance there;
The body proving spirit, as the effect
The cause: we, meantime, being too grossly apt
To hold the natural, as dogs a bone,
(Though reason and nature beat us in the face),
So obstinately, that we’ll break our teeth
Or ever we let go. For everywhere
We’re too materialistic,–eating clay,
(Like men of the west) instead of Adam’s corn
And Noah’s wine; clay by handfuls, clay by lumps,
Until we’re filled up to the throat with clay,
And grow the grimy colour of the ground
On which we are feeding. Ay, materialist
The age’s name is.”

“Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes”

 “The Christ himself had been no Lawgiver,
Unless He had given the life, too, with the law.”

“This race is never grateful: from the first,
One fills their cup at supper with pure wine,
Which back they give at cross-time on a sponge,
In bitter vinegar.’
              ‘If gratefuller,’
He murmured,–’by so much less pitiable!
God’s self would never have come down to die,
Could man have thanked him for it.'”

Reblogged: “A Tale of Two Fathers: ‘Silas Marner’ on the True Meaning of Fatherhood” from The Witherspoon Institute

Tags

, ,

George Eliot was a prominent Victorian author who eventually rejected her Christian beliefs, so I’m not planning on covering her in this blog, but I liked this analaysis of the theme of adoptive fatherhood in one of her favourite works of mine, Silas Marner. It contains some plot spoilers, so you might want to read the novel first. I recommend this if you liked Heidi; Silas Marner also narrates the story of a grandfatherly-type looking after an orphan girl in a little hut. There’s definitely a redemptive story of new birth contained in the novel that I argue reflects Eliot’s Christian upbringing.

Introducing “Cranford” by Elizabeth Gaskell

Tags

, , ,

At the height of the age of decorum and manners, this little comedic novel pokes fun at precisely these treasured trimmings of Victorian society. Cranford, Elizabeth Gaskell’s second novel, chronicles several episodes from the lives of a group of spinsterly ladies living in a quaint village that moves somewhat behind the times. The rigid customs and habits of the barely middle-class ladies of Cranford the narrator humourously exposes as eccentric, but endearingly so, showing how affected formalities and practices can actually build authentic community.  For Gaskell, communal values supersede class values; the customs of class do not define people to their core.

While typical Victorian novels uphold romantic, marital love as the penultimate relationship, Cranford appreciates sisterly and neighbourly love. Christians, too, often idolize the love between husband and wife as the sublime picture of Christ and his bride (the church), forgetting the other picture of humble submission and kindness – love between brothers and sisters within the body of Christ. Cranford reminds us that there is a place in the body of Christ for all people, married or celibate, fertile or barren.

While Gaskell does not choose to include any direct Biblical expositions in this novel, as she does in others, Cranford still illustrates Christian values of compassion, honesty and forgiveness, probably best summed up in Jesus’ words (quoting from the Old Testament Law)  “Love your neighbour,” the second highest commandment after loving God. For Gaskell, in this novel as in others, we are not meant to live alone but were destined for community, and the fullest life is partaking in a community operating under Christian values, in whatever curious fashion they may express themselves.

Should Adults Feel Embarrassed Reading YA Novels?

Tags

,

It’s not uncommon to see a 30-something with a copy of Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, or, more recently, teenage-romance-novel-turned-film The Fault in Our Stars in their hands, an editorial in the National Post laments. Young Adult fiction, or YA, is purchased mostly by people over 18, apparently. (One commenter jabs that this probably includes predominantly females, but I don’t know – 20-something males and comic books, anyone?)

Why are adults fanatically reading novels intended for children? Is this another symptom of prolonged adolescence? Of a dumbing down of our culture? A decline of the classics? A decline in literacy? I don’t know that I buy the first reason, because I’ve heard even mothers in their forties accompanied their daughters to see Twilight in theatres. I think there is something exceptionally titillating about the idealistic, swoon-inducing romance of both the teenage and harlequin variety, but that doesn’t explain Harry Potter. Or comic books.

There’s nothing wrong, of course, with reading an occasional YA novel, as Graham from the Post points out. I read the first Twilight book in German to practice the language (it’s right at my level – which doesn’t say much for my German!). The concern arises when adults are reading nothing else and thus missing out on the classics – or at least contemporary adult literature (which I am not especially a fan of).

Graham also asks another important question. Why are so many young adults reading Young Adult fiction? Isn’t it more exciting to peep into a so-called “grown-up” book? Why does YA even exist as a genre? When I was twelve years old I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time, and after that awakening into the world of the classics I wanted little to do with YA fiction. It all paled in comparison to the knowledge of the world bound up in an “adult” novel. We all desire to grow up, don’t we?

Did you read YA growing up? How important do you think classics and adult fiction is in shaping the minds of young people? Do you think middle- and high-school-aged children should read popular YA for novel studies in school, as is commonly the case? Why do you think adults choose to read YA regularly? Leave your thoughts below.

 

 

 

 

Introducing “Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault to Church” by James K. A. Smith

Tags

, ,

“My goal is to demythologize postmodernism by showing that what we commonly think so-called postmodernists are saying is usually not the case. Second, and perhaps more provocatively, I will demonstrate that, in fact, all these claims have a deep affinity with central Christian claims.”  –“Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?”

I first stumbled across this little volume shortly after completing my master’s degree several years ago, and I was thrilled to find it. “Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault to Church” by James K. A. Smith is the first installment in a series entitled “The Church and Postmodern Culture” that seeks to offer Christian perspectives on postmodernism in a practical and very readable way.

Evangelical Christian professors engaging with academic big guns like Derrida and Foucault? And engaging them on a fair and critical level, pointing out where they got it right – not just offering sweeping condemnation? Where have you been all these years?

In this book, Smith argues that Christians misunderstand the main claims of postmodernism (below) because they don’t understand the context of these claims:

“There is nothing outside the text.” -Derrida

“Postmodernity is ‘incredulity toward metanarratives.'” -Lyotard

“Power is knowledge.” -Foucault

Smith spends the remainder of the book explaining how, when understood in context, all of these postmodernist slogans actually hold true in the Christian worldview. Smith’s book reads clearly and accessibly, but that does not hinder its profundity. If you like books that offer a little philosophy trip, you’ll want to pick up this book. Prepare to change your mind about postmodernism as you always thought you knew it.

Nature Reveals the Glory of God in “Lorna Doone,” Part III of III

Tags

, , , ,

“….suddenly the gladsome light leaped over hill and valley, casting amber, blue, and purple, and a tint of rich red rose, according to the scene they lit on, and the curtain flung around; yet all alike dispelling fear and the cloven hoof of darkness, all on the wings of hope advancing, and proclaiming, ‘God is here.’” –Lorna Doone

“But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish in the sea inform you.
Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the LORD has done this? Job 12:7-9

 

In Lorna Doone, everything in nature bursts with vitality and expression, beyond simply the biological symptoms of life. Nothing, from the swaying flowers to the craggy rocks to the eerie mists, escapes the narrator John Ridd’s personifying and metaphorical lens. Flowers smile and fogs oppress, animals converse and feel miffed, skies warn and seasons forebode. Always nature sympathizes with John’s mood, and always it displays the glory and the story of its creator. Through John’s eyes, we see nature entirely imbued with the imprints and traces of a maker.

Nature has a creator in Lorna Doone, and that creator is joyful, creative, good and rational. We know this because these are the characteristics of his creation. We know a creator exists, first of all, because without a God who has ordained the events of nature, nature is meaningless and the blowing of the wind is to no purpose; “the Lord only kn[ow][s] the sense of it,” John reflects on the effects of the Gulf-stream on the weather. We know the creator is joyful because he causes brooks to laugh and dance, meadows to ruffle (103), tree branches to glisten with dew (173) and the sun to drink it (174). We also see the creator’s sense of humour as John affectionately tells us about his barn animals displaying endearingly human-like traits, such as taunting each other and lingering with lovers. John adores these little barnyard comedians, experiences joy working the land and expresses gratitude at harvest time (183). For John, the world is a gift from a joyful creator, a gift sometimes incomprehensible but evidencing vestiges of a creator who, in his omniscience, does comprehend all things, and who, through his good gifts, displays his trustworthiness.

The narrator also beautifully demonstrates the existence of a creator in the exquisite picture of John gazing around him at the laughing brook, the ruffling meadow and the breeze opening up the primroses:

“These little things come and dwell with me; and I am happy about them…. I feel with every blade of grass, as if it had a history; and make a child of every bud, as though it knew and loved me. And being so, they seemed to tell me of my own oblivion, how I am no more than they….”

John feels so fond of nature and so familiar with all of its little details that he looks upon them as a father would upon his own children; yet at the same time that he loves them and imagines, as it were, that they love him, he simultaneously identifies with them, being created himself to love and to be loved by something or someone much beyond and above him, without which he is nothing. Nature is both familiar and yet strangely isolating, and in this uncanny space both the presence and absence of God is felt. As creatures ourselves, we both feel the love of our creator and at the same time recognize our nothingness. “Man is but a breath, we know,” says John; man is both nothing (“but” or “only”) and life (“breath”) at the same time.

This isolating effect of nature points to the other knowledge nature imparts about God, which is that he is at times wrathful. John doesn’t only find his own joy and the joy of his creator reflected in nature, but the residue of sin, and its resulting curse. When John wonders what has become of Lorna and fears her death, nature empathizes so strongly with him that “all was lonely, drear and drenched with sodden desolation. It seemed as if my love was dead, and the winds were at her funeral.” (233) Death is an ever-present possibility in a fallen, cursed world, and neither humans nor nature are free from it. Furthermore, both being under the same blessings and curses of the creator, that humans would view nature in an empathetic light and find in it both solace and anguish comes as no surprise. The curse of death, John reflects, as he views the bloody carnage of the rebellion, blemishes nature like a “reeking” stain, that “drown[s] the scent of new-mown hay, and the carol of the lark.” God created a beautiful world, where work brings satisfaction (“the scent of new-mown hay”) and nature rejoices (“the carol of the lark”), but the blight of human sin taints everything, so that humans exist in a world simultaneously good and evil, comforting and tormenting, familiar and isolating.

But there exists a far greater comfort in faith. “I…could [never] bring myself to believe that our Father would let the evil one get the upper hand of us,” writes John. Evil resides alongside us, but we know evil fights a losing battle, and the omnipotence and wisdom of God sustains all, even the limited power of evil. For John, nature mirrors the spiritual warfare raging in the human heart, where good and evil fight, but good always wins in the end:

“In all things there is comfort… [i]n the rustling rush of every gust, in the graceful bend of every tree, even in the ‘Lords and Ladies,’ clumped in the scoops of the hedgerow, and most of all in the soft primrose wrung by the wind but stealing back, and smiling when the wrath was past.”

In this exquisite description of flowers bowed down by the wind and then flinging back smiling “when the wrath was past,” John shows us the anger and mercy of God in the tiniest details of nature, and mercy always prevails. The heavens above us also inspire faith: “At the sky alone, (though questioned with the doubts of sunshine, or scattered with uncertain stars) at the sky alone we look, with pure hope, and with memory.” (429) The mere spreading of a bud is hope, John writes (112). Morning is hope, “To awake as the summer sun [comes] slanting over the hill-tops, with hope on every beam adance to the laughter of the morning (173). What is the source of this hope? That “God is here,” believes John, testified to by the faithful rising of the sun, its warming rays, and its dispelling of darkness and fear:

“Yet before the floating impress of the woods could clear itself, suddenly the gladsome light leaped over hill and valley, casting amber, blue, and purple, and a tint of rich red rose, according to the scene they lit on, and the curtain flung around; yet all alike dispelling fear and the cloven hoof of darkness, all on the wings of hope advancing, and proclaiming, ‘God is here.’ Then life and joy sprang reassured from every crouching hollow; every flower, and bud, and bird, had a fluttering sense of them; and all the flashing of God’s gaze merged into soft beneficence.” (216)

But an even greater hope exists: God is coming. As John contemplates further, the rising of the sun and the joy of a new, hopeful morning is merely a foreshadowing of an even better sunrise, the rising of the face of our heavenly Father himself:

“So perhaps shall break upon us that eternal morning, when crag and chasm shall be no more, neither hill and valley, nor great unvintaged ocean; when glory shall not scare happiness, neither happiness envy glory; but all things shall arise and shine in the light of the Father’s countenance, because itself is risen.”

At the end of this age all creation will wake into a new, “eternal” morning, an everlasting joy where the flow of God’s grace and mercy is no longer disrupted by his wrath (signified by the night), humans no longer feel isolated or afraid, and death itself dies. For now, nature serves, as John Ridd knows, as our sign of hope for the future.

________________________
What a wonderful message of hope from a beautiful piece of literature. How did the nature imagery in Lorna Doone speak to you?

Reblogged: “Why Literature Matters: Some Presuppositional Considerations”

Some insightful observations about literature and narration from a favourite blog of mine.

Why Literature Matters: Some Presuppositional Considerations (Pt.2).

The Male Gaze: Masculinity and Godliness in “Lorna Doone,” Part II of III

Tags

, , , , , ,

[Introduction to Lorna Doone]

[Part I of this three-part analysis]

“I…will love them and show myself to them.” -Jesus, John 14:21

Feminists have made much of the recurring motif of the male gaze in literature. The concept of women being the object of the male gaze (whether aware or unaware) is exemplified in film, but one can also find this motif recurring throughout literature. Feminists see the male gaze as a symbol of the larger patriarchal objectification of women in society; objects are always receivers of someone’s gaze, a passive interaction that leaves them devoid of power and control.

And there is some merit to this theory of the evils of male gazing. Certainly, King David’s objectifying gaze of Bathsheba bathing was not only sinful in itself, but led to a series of the greatest sins of his life. David exemplified a male of power and privilege gazing at a vulnerable woman, unawares, and saying, “I want that; mine.” One could write an entire essay about the unrestricted male gaze as a root of a whole host of sins, such as pornography, prostitution, rape and more – and tie it into the tenth commandment.

Fascinatingly, in Lorna Doone, Blackmore creates the anti-David in John Ridd. Several times John comes upon Lorna unaware in her bower, and is stunned and mesmerized by her beauty. But instead of enjoying gazing at her from the shadows, he “leap[s] forth at once, in fearing of seeming to watch her unawares.” In another chapter he does the same, thinking, “Who was I, to crouch, or doubt, or look at her from a distance…. Therefore, I rushed out…not from any real courage but from prisoned love burst forth.” John always comes out of his hiding place immediately, feeling almost ashamed, not thinking it fair to watch her from afar but rather desiring to approach her on equal ground and converse with her face to face. More than once this exact scene plays out in the novel, and each time John jumps out instantly upon espying Lorna, not desiring, or not finding it sufficient, to merely gaze at her; indeed he is most anxious to avoid such a situation. His heart’s desire is to get to know Lorna as a person, which speaks magnitudes about his respect for her.

Again, as in my previous discussion of Lorna Doone, we see John tempering the desires of his flesh in a selfless manner. In John’s view, it is not right to objectify anyone, because doing so degrades the person and raises the self, and we know from elsewhere in the novel that John strives to be humble. In contrast to objectification, John desires real relationships with people and desires real restoration of relationships (as we see frequently with his mother and sisters). Much more could be said about John’s pursual of a genuine relationship with Lorna throughout the novel; his refusal to gaze at her in her bower from afar is only the beginning. 

All of John’s views stem from his Christian beliefs, and nothing could be more anti-gospel than the objectifying male gaze. For the Bible tells us that God himself was not satisfied to merely gaze at his creation from afar but desired to come down and see us face to face, converse with us on equal ground and create (actually, restore) a real relationship with us, through the person of Jesus Christ. The objectifying male gaze is unChristian because it degrades the image-bearers of God and has the effect of destroying relationship and equality. In the garden of Eden, at the fall of man, relationships broke down (man-woman, human-God), but Christ seeks to bind these together again. A real man seeks to undo the effects of the breakdown of Adam and Eve’s relationship and the effects of sin’s curse by seeking a real relationship with a woman, on equal footing with her and respecting her autonomy and identity as an image-bearer of God. John Ridd is the ideal of that real man seeking a real relationship.

5 Reasons For Christians to Watch the Movie “God’s Not Dead”

Tags

, ,

I figured I can justify squeezing a post about this movie into this section of my blog because it features a lone Christian student taking on secular academia. Also, the first philosopher in his professor’s parade of atheist champions is Michel Foucault, a dear friend of the English departments since the 1970’s.

Anyway, you will probably read many correct and excellent critiques on other sites of the shortcomings of God’s Not Dead, such as the film’s tendency to demonize atheists and over-dramatize acting. Such critiques are necessary and good, and will hopefully serve to improve the quality of Christian filmmaking for the future. But I’d like to take a minute to point out some of the merits of the film and why Christians should consider supporting it by watching it in theaters.

1. Professor Radisson’s class represents a microcosm of the university as a whole.

Some viewers might think it’s a little extreme to portray an atheist professor so dogmatic in his beliefs that he basically forces all his students to sign a contract agreeing to begin the course with the intellectual premise that God does not exist. But this is actually not that far from what the university is like on a larger scale and in a more implicit manner. At least Dr. Radisson has the honesty to inform his students directly that belief in God will not be tolerated in the classroom; on a real campus, the contractual avowal of the non-existence of God manifests itself in a much more subtle and gradual way. This indoctrination culminates in fourth year (when humanities courses study mostly philosophy, no matter their branch), at which point students are expected to finish the religious and conservative beliefs and values decontamination process.

2. The film gives the viewer a glimpse of the world through the lens of divine order.

Events, including tragedies, have meaning in the Christian worldview. It doesn’t follow that we always understand them (or ever will in this life), especially while they are happening (as the struggles of characters in the film illustrate), but we believe God is sovereign and loves justice and order, and is therefore worthy of our trust. God’s Not Dead portrays the hand of God intertwining and intersecting the lives of characters for the sole purpose of adding to his kingdom those who accept his grace.

3. The script authentically confronts the viewer with the problem of sin.

A truthful portrayal of Christianity cannot shy away from addressing the sinful nature of humans. There is no grace without repentance. However, our society has heard about sin so many times they tend to tune it out like a teacher announcing a grammar lesson. Both may be tiresome to hear about, but that doesn’t negate their truthfulness. Sometimes a teacher needs to shake things up and explain a dry concept in a new light, and I feel this is what God’s Not Dead achieves with the thought-provoking “Sin is like a comfortable jail cell” conversation. Nobody said sin didn’t feel or look good – but Christianity is about digging deeper than appearances and feelings.

4. Christians need to support Christian filmmaking.

Want to see better Christian movies in the future? Support this movie by buying a movie ticket and sending the message that there IS a market for Christian films. Show Hollywood and secular culture in general that they got it wrong about the non-existence of this, too.

5. Christians need to support Christian filmmakers.

Put your money toward Christian directors, rather than Darren Aronofsky. We want films about Christianity and the Bible in the hands of Christian filmmakers – not non-believers – who we can trust to accurately portray the message of Christianity. If we want to see more films in the future true to the gospel message and the Scriptures in general, then we need to encourage up-and-coming Christian filmmakers that the financial risk of making a Christian film will see its reward.