Courageous Christianity?
Anthony Parisi is a filmmaker for New Renaissance Pictures and one of the co-founders of WebSerials.com. His website is www.anthonyparisimedia.com
Last weekend saw the release of Courageous, the fourth film produced by the media ministry of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia. Opening fourth at the box office with a call to responsible fatherhood, the movie is being trumpeted as the latest culture-transforming hope for some evangelicals. As with Facing the Giants and Fireproof, endorsements are marching out from various churches and para-church organizations across the country.
I’m less concerned with how individual Christians personally choose to interact with the film and more with the troubling trends of American evangelicalism it illustrates. Is Courageous really something to be whole-heartedly embraced? Art being reduced as a vehicle for sermonizing is problematic enough, but even more so is the type of sermon being preached. The emphasis on personal morality and simplistic transformation turn this film into a superficial lecture rather than a robust exploration of life as a Christian father. Our personal piety, our self-improvement, and our “courage” forms the fabric of the story. Christ and his gospel, along with church life and God’s established means of grace, are marginalized.
The story follows a group of four law enforcement officers who seek to become better fathers and live up to God’s calling of leadership in their homes. When tragedy strikes his family, Adam (played by writer/director Alex Kendrick) looks for renewed identity by telling his pastor “I want to know what God expects of me as a father.” Six weeks later he’s typed up a list of resolutions and is on a mission to live up to each and every one of them. “I don’t want to be a good enough father.” His other friends soon join in and they all agree to hold each other accountable. Resolutions are framed and vows are given in a backyard ceremony. They are warned to now be “doubly accountable” and when challenges arise will need “courage, courage, courage.”
The third act attempts to put these vows to the test through a handful of sequences that show the men either failing or persevering. Three of the men encounter few problems at all, appearing to meet the challenge effortlessly. One fails and is convicted of a serious crime. Another faces a test of honesty at work but resists the temptation—finding no consequences or suffering for his integrity and instead receiving instant promotion. Everything culminates in a Sunday morning church scene. The pastor gives up his pulpit to one of the cops, who admonishes the men in the congregation to accept their responsibilities as fathers if they want God’s blessing on their home. Inspiring music crescendos and fists are raised with the repeating cries of “I will, I will, I will!“
The film closes and we smash cut to a 3D fly-in of the title “Courageous” as contemporary Christian rock drives it home with anthemic force. “We were made to be courageous / We were made to lead the way / We could be the generation / That finally breaks the chains.” Watching this inspirational ending, one can’t help but hear an echo of the Israelites at the foot of Mt. Sinai, where all of the people swear an oath to keep the law and be faithful to the Mosaic covenant. The credits even display Joshua 24:15, taken from a passage where Joshua leads the people of Israel in covenant renewal at Shechem as they again promise to fulfill their vows. In the context of redemptive history, this story illustrates how Israel’s failure to be faithful and inherit the Promised Land ultimately pointed forward to Christ, who would earn the true Promised Land for his people in spite of their sin. In Courageous, as in many Sherwood productions, texts like this are abstracted and turned into moralistic slogans already on hats and t-shirts. As with much self-proclaimed “Christian art” from the last few decades, the end product ends up replicating many of the worst parts of our consumerist culture. Spin-off resolution books and devotionals become branded accompaniments.
Given the clear sincerity and earnest work put in by the filmmakers, it’s hard to know the best way to respond to all this. The social issues and family challenges it seeks to raise are certainly worth exploring. Small, independent dramas on family life are a rarity in Hollywood’s current obsession with franchise-driven blockbusters and it’s refreshing to see stories of this scale and interest on screen. The importance of fathers in family life and their responsibilities is always an area in need of our attention. Yet it’s hard to muster much enthusiasm when the film fails to engage or embody any of these areas well.
Courageous rejects nuance and the cross-bearing pilgrimage of the Christian life for artificially neat resolutions to the prayers of its one-dimensional characters. Sherwood continues to make films with God functioning primarily as a tool for our lives—whether he’s helping us win football games, repair our struggling marriages, or helping us find a job within seconds of a cry to the heavens. Brief, passing references to the gospel are only seen useful to convert a skeptic, who in a few tearful seconds somehow embraces the faith. Despite all the sermonizing dialogue—the story’s form and emphatic message has all of its focus on us and our accomplishments, not Christ and his work for us. In what could be page out of a John Elridge book, the “manly” vocation of police officer is used as the icon of fatherhood. Violent shootouts and car chase stunts ensure being a godly dad also looks as glorious as possible. Even the poster image calls to mind the slow-motion hero shot popularized by Michael Bay. As for the women, they are given little to do than look on approvingly.
The result is that Christians and their “good works” become the message, overshadowing Christ and the gospel. The LA Times calls the movie “a particularly clunky, tunnel-visioned vehicle whose overbearing, overlong script nearly smothers the movie’s quibble-free message: Fathers must be responsible.” The AV Club describes it as “essentially about fundamentally good, moral men proudly accepting the mantle of fatherhood” and feels that the film “deifies fatherhood and fathers when it would be better off treating its central striver like a flawed human being instead of a paper saint.” Slant Magazine laments “One must have the courage to ignore this self-righteous pablum’s naïve, truly offensive trivialization of social realities in this country—the complete flipside of Paul Haggis’s cynical representation of the same in Crash.” The New York Times pointedly sums everything up: “Adam is born again into the spiritual obligations of conservative family values.”
While surely produced with good intentions, Courageous is likely to further entrench the misguided culture wars and bring harm to the Christian witness in the world. Alongside the political arena, art is another place where confusion about the institutional church and the way it interacts with culture is common. Churches should always encourage individual members to take up vocations in the arts, but this is to be done out of love for one’s neighbor and needs to embrace the totality of life. Films like this reinforce the unfortunate impulse that anything we create must be explicitly “Christianized” or evangelistic. Churches are to spread the kingdom not by some sort of cultural revival but by the unglamorous life of local ministry God has founded on Word and sacrament. Making movies falls far outside the bounds of what the church has been called to do.
Thankfully, the church has good news that far outpaces the takeaway of this story: an announcement that God has reconciled sinners to himself through Jesus Christ. The gospel pulls us out of our fragile self-worth built on performance and centers our identity on God’s love for us in Christ. As forgiven, yet still sinful sons and daughters, mothers and fathers— we will continually fall short of what God has called us to. In marriage and family life we need to be reminded of the gospel more than ever. Only by continually looking to our standing in grace can we be humbled and motivated to serve others not in prideful self-righteousness but thankful gratitude. Christ was courageous for us when we were not. This is the good news that changes everything.



October 11th, 2011 at 8:19 am
I have a hard time swallowing this review because it in no way represents the movie itself. The main problem is that in the movie one of the actors even tells another one of the actors that its not about our good works or being a good person but about the Gospel. This movie doesn’t preach moralistic therapeutic deism as the review suggests, but rather preaches the whole Gospel. In fact I believe this movie doesn’t even confuse the law/gospel issue at all but that would be another response entirely. Is the focus solely on the Gospel? No. Can a movie even a movie that has a good message replace the preaching of God’s Word on the Lord’s Day? No! But can a movie be used of God if it is centered on the Gospel? Absolutely. To suggest as this review does that this movie does not preach the Gospel and instead focuses on what one can “do” in terms of being a good person is disappointing at best and misleading at worst. I’m disappointed White Horse Inn allowed this review to be posted.
October 11th, 2011 at 8:27 am
When I read about this film being produced as a “ministry of” a church, my cynical attitudes surfaced, again!
Been there, done that, and bought the T-Shirt when I worked for a Moody Christian Bookstore and Film “ministry” many years ago (mid ‘80s to mid ‘90s).
October 11th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Hmmm, this blog makes the subject very thought provoking. For the most part I agree with Dave Jenkins, but without the finality of surprise and disappointment in the blog as I can see the point Mike is making about whether or not it is actually profitable to present a “Christian” movie that is high on moralism. Does it encourage just a different brand of sensuality to encourage people to go with their moral senses?
But considering the reference in the movie that it’s not about good works, but the gospel, I think ultimately as Christians we need to stay focused on concern about the gospel being preached from the pulpit, not the movie theaters. Otherwise we’re going to be exhausted censoring all mention of Christianity in the world around us. For those solidly rooted in the gospel, this movie can be simply a much needed encouragement in the high calling of fatherhood. For those not strongly rooted in the gospel the problem is that it can be one more source endorsing the moralism they are hearing on Sunday. I think the problem is the Sunday one, though, not the movie theater one. For unbelievers watching the movie – it is thought provoking, and I’m sure a refreshing change and contrast from what they are used to seeing in a theater. I think it’s reasonable to hope that as with any other preaching of the law it can highlight their utter inadequacy if God is inclined to work salvation in them. Who knows, maybe they will be pumped up on moralism after walking out of the theater but 3 years from now when that (and they) have been shown to fail miserably it will drive them to Christ.
I think as reformed Christians we’re very sensitive (rightly) to the law being used as an invitation to “join” Christianity. But keeping in mind our human nature’s tendency to backlash, I think the various uses of the law combined with the fact that movie theaters aren’t pulpits make this movie still a great idea and worth seeing.
Heather
October 11th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Heather,
You make a number of really good points in your response. The issue as you noted rightly isn’t whether the Gospel was preached well in the movie or not (I believe it was) but rather, “Are our churches preaching the Gospel faithfully?” This is an important question and one I believe Dr. Horton and the hosts on White Horse Inn do a good job at answering.
Just to clarify my disappointment is that it seems the reviewer of the movie takes a negative view of the movie in terms of its Gospel presentation but fails to account for the fact the Gospel is actually preached. One of the things that bothers me is that Christians who make these kinds of arguments are usually the one’s that are criticizing all Christian movies (mostly rightly so) but not being supportive of the fact that Christians are at least attempting to do good work in a secular environment.
So here is my issue; as Reformed Christians we rightly believe that the Gospel is for all of life but yet we criticize those to harshly who are seeking to take the Gospel into a secular environment. Granted that many movies do major on moralism, but Courageous majors on the Gospel as the primary message and then minors on the issue of fatherhood. I believe a non-believer seeing this movie could be led to faith by watching this movie as sin is pointed out (its not about being a good person) and the Gospel is explained (what it is and how to respond to it). I don’t see a moralistic message being preached in this movie but the reviewer does.
The larger issue here to me is those critiquing this movie are often the one’s who seemingly are against Christians making movies at all. This is my concern here. As Christians we should gather to hear the Word of God preached every Lord’s Day, but the Lord scatters us to proclaim the Gospel in order to make disciples for the Gospel. So I think there is some confusion in this review on the “scattering” and using art in the service of advancing the Gospel. Hopefully that clarifies my comments above.
October 11th, 2011 at 10:10 am
great movie.
the gospel was preached. including the idea of God’s holiness, mans guilt, christ as a penal substitution, and the need for a response.
the target audience was clearly not reformed establishment, but blue collar men who need to be challenged about their responsibilities and the gospel.
All too often reformed people have trouble putting themselves in other peoples shoes. if a sermon, a hymn, or a movie doesn’t resonate with them (or doesn’t come from someone in their camp), they dismiss it or pick, pick, pick.
Kudos to John Piper and Randy Alcorn for coming out for this movie.
October 11th, 2011 at 10:43 am
I heard the gospel clearly proclaimed in Courageous, high view of God, His Word, and biblical manhood and womanhood. BTW, Sherwood is in Albany, GA.
In regards to the review…well, I just gonna sit here and knock down the straw man dragging the red herring through my office.
Contra Mundum,
Jeff
October 11th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
The review was spot on.
October 11th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
the movie is being trumpeted as the latest culture-transforming hope for some evangelicals
The cynic in me says “coming to a canned sermon series near you soon!”.
October 11th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
[...] have not seen the movie Courageous, but one commentator at the White Horse Inn blog says the following: Courageous rejects nuance and the cross-bearing [...]
October 11th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
[...] have not seen the movie Courageous, but one commentator at the White Horse Inn blog says the following: Courageous rejects nuance and the cross-bearing [...]
October 11th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
To lee n. field: You’re right. And instead of opening the Bible and preaching from it, seeker-driven pastors will talk about the movie for their sermon(s), er I mean, message. (I keep forgetting “sermon” is not seeker friendly).
October 11th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
I enthusiastically reviewed the novelization by Randy Alcorn on Amazon and elsewhere and blogged about that book. So much more is in the novel than in the movie which I also saw.
Yes, both the novel and the movie preach somewhat artificially, but I believe our LORD can use all means to draw men and women to Christ and to a solid commitment of parents to raise the next generation in the fear and admonition of the LORD.
“Courageous” had less artificial scenes than the previous film, “Fireproof”. “Courageous” was careful to avoid some stereotypes. The Resolution or commitment of the men at the ceremony was outside–not in a certain type of church building. Well done, Pastors Alex Kendrick Stephen Kendrick and Randy Alcorn.
October 11th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
With all due respect to this reviewer, I was blessed by this movie. I am a reformed Christian and have walked with my Lord for 40 years now. My husband and I along with many from the PCA Presbyterian congregation that my son ministers at went to this movie. We were all deeply touched and found good message on fatherhood here.
When I go to see art, I am not looking for some deep theological message, but I am looking for biblical qualities in presentation. Certainly, the Gospel was presented in the movie. The characters went through a serious trauma in their lives which is very realistic and hard to imagine. I think if you begin knit picking….anyone can find something wrong with any presentation today.
However, I always wonder…..how can you know the true motivation of the people making this movie? You assume many things…but do you know their hearts? If you can do something purer and better…maybe you should try to produce something that lines up with your philosophy and theology.
God takes all of our offerings….preaching, teaching, writing, film producing, painting, music and applies them to the hearts of people Himself. All our efforts are imperfect….but God can take them and use them. There is no preacher, teacher or other Christian who is perfect…thus our efforts will always fall short. But God…He is sovereign over all things. And even if things fall short….He can take them and apply them to hearts and minds. He can reach people you and I cannot reach by using a vehicle like this. Who are we as believers to judge another servant of the Lord?
Our theology may differ from the those who worked on his movie. However, as Dr. R.C. Sproul said in a recent podcast in talking about predestination, we should show charity to other believers who do not see eye to eye with us. It does not profit us to be negative in the Christian community of believers. Rather than criticize, we should go out and try to create something better if we feel this film fell short.
I am just thankful that a church is trying to produce clean movies with a Christian theme. It certainly beats anything I have seen come out of Hollywood in a LONG time.
My husband and I are long time White Horse Inn listeners and I am disappointed in this review appearing on their blog. I think we can do better in showing greater charity towards one another.
October 11th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
[...] Courageous Christianity? – White Horse Inn Blog [...]
October 11th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
I believe this was a fair review. What does Courageous have going for it?
1. It contains the clearest Gospel presentation a theater worthy film has contained in recent memory.
2. It is a fun, family film in the midst of much garbage.
What plays against it?
1. It does have some overly used cliches that finish the way one would expect. I personally was shocked by the reactions most people had throughout the film. It was overly predictable. For example, why else would a man cling to a vehicle being stolen? A policeman’s daughter is seeing a gang member. A man dreams about handing his daughter over in marriage (reminds me of a popular Christian song). The list could go on and on.
2. As clear as the Gospel presentation is, it does have a strong moralistic message running through it. There was a strong sense that God was just in the sky waiting to be used as a tool and ready to judge us for not using Him properly. The majority of “churches” in America will cling to this and ignore the Gospel.
3. Does anybody have a problem with people talking to the dead? I cringed during that scene. Taking a Bible verse out of context? That really needs to stop.
4. It was a little on the long side.
All this said, I see this movie as a way to bring up great discussions. I have recommended it to many people and have enjoyed conversations around it on Biblical manhood. I just want to be clear this movie was not so wonderful that we cannot be critical of it. It is just a movie.
October 11th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Dave and Heather I appreciate your comments. Dave I agree with your sentiments. I have a difficult time with the constant picking apart of Christians, para-church ministries… that are seeking to glorify God in their trades. It is very disappointing indeed. There are definitely things that could be improved, but overall it is a powerful message that exposes how miserably we men abrogate our duties and responsibility to our family. Unfortunately there are many within the Reformed camp that appear to have a high view of God’s word when it comes to soteriology, but a very low view of God’s word when it comes to His Law.
October 11th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Ben, good points as well. Especially the likelihood of churches to cling to the moralisms presented in the film vs. the Gospel. Also I have the same thoughts regarding talking to dead people! I was thinking the same thing!
October 12th, 2011 at 5:43 am
Many of these same concerns I expressed to my pastor. For me using movie dramas to present the gospel always comes out heavy handed and makes me cringe. All my Christian friends are so eager to support and spread the word on this church’s movies, but the movies, while getting better, still aren’t very good. It’s not the production value that bothers me, it’s the poor storytelling. Incredible films have been made recently with Christian themes that are far more compelling. I’m thinking Gran Torino or To End All Wars. Even Secretariat. If this movie encourages Christians to live out their faith authentically, I commend it. But please don’t take your unbelieving friends to this movie. It will be far more likely to harden than to draw them.
October 12th, 2011 at 6:11 am
“Courageous rejects nuance and the cross-bearing pilgrimage of the Christian life for artificially neat resolutions to the prayers of its one-dimensional characters.”
I can see what you mean but remember that the main event in this movie is him losing his daughter in a tragic accident. Although its used as an impetus for him being a better father, I think the movie was careful to show that it didn’t “solve” his problem. After the funniest scene in the movie you’re suddenly wrenched back to the pain of his loss when he says “We’re going to be ok aren’t we?”.
Personally I had a difficult time figuring out what precisely the message of the movie was supposed to be. But I still found it more powerful (emotionally) than your standard hollywood fare. Honestly that in itself is an achievement. Who else is even trying to do this?
“3. Does anybody have a problem with people talking to the dead? I cringed during that scene. Taking a Bible verse out of context? That really needs to stop.”
I saw it as a therapeutic technique that didn’t need to be taken literally. (A response to his pastor’s recommendation to be grateful for the time he did have, not angry at what he lost)
October 12th, 2011 at 6:16 am
What’s the point of this review? To simply denigrate another Christian church because their way of professing the Gospel is different than what the reviewer “thought” should be in the movie? Sherwood is trying to get the much-needed word of God professed through a medium rife with worldliness, and doing it well by the way. What could possibly be wrong with that?! The Apostle Paul specifically spoke to divisions within the church, and chided them for [effectively] beating each other up for nuance that was entirely unnecessary. I am very proud of Sherwood for their capability and the fact they offer each movie project up to God every day in a pre-filming prayer session – they are excellent soldiers and servants for God…for anyone to pick apart their effort over nits is poor sportsmanship at best. Bottom line: As Christians we are in the same “game” yet on different teams. I would be so bold as to say most of us are not way out in left-field but are working hard to bring people far from God , closer to Him. This review does a disservice to the genuine God-focused effort by Sherwood…which, incidentally, is located in Albany, Georgia, not Virginia …making this reviewer even more suspect.
October 12th, 2011 at 6:27 am
Haven’t seen the movie but regarding your comments on the “people at Sinai”. There were two groups at the mountain, non elect who thought they could gain Gods approval through their moralistic efforts and a second group, the remnant who committed themselves to gospel obedience by faith in the great law keeper yet to come. Why associate the men in the movie with pagan Israel, why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Bf
October 12th, 2011 at 6:33 am
Albany, GEORGIA
October 12th, 2011 at 7:00 am
Ben, while I appreciate your opinion about the movie, I did have a few thoughts about your objections.
1) The cliches you mentioned (a man clinging to a vehicle being stolen, a policeman’s daughter is seeing a gang member, a man dreams about handing his daughter over in marriage) are cliches because people can relate to them. They reflect real life. As a father, they are reflective of the fears and anxieties real fathers face.
2) The movie does have a clear presentation of the Gospel and a moralistic message. As Christians, we are called to live moral lives! We camp out on Ephesians 2:8-9 and neglect verse 10 that tells us we are to do good works. We need to be taught to live rightly. As a father, being a courageous father is part of that.
3) I have a problem with people PRAYING to the dead. When my mother passed away a couple of years ago, I “spoke” to her, usually only in my mind but sometimes out loud. I have a full understanding that she could not hear me nor respond. For a wounded heart, this can be emotionally helpful. I do not find that to be theologically harmful.
4) I totally agree that it was a little long.
October 12th, 2011 at 7:03 am
A couple of relevant passages come to my mind:
Philippians 1:15-18
Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice.
We are free to critique, but let’s also rejoice that Christ is proclaimed in Courageous (even if with “pretense”).
And as to the pessimistic outlook (“Courageous is likely to . . . bring harm to the Christian witness in the world.”):
1 Corinthians 13:7
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Let’s believe and hope, through prayer, that God’s kingdom will be advanced, even through our feeble and inadequate movie-making attempts!
October 12th, 2011 at 7:13 am
Your post locates Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Virginia. The Church is in Georgia not Virginia. Thought you might like to know.
October 12th, 2011 at 7:34 am
Not that it matters, but the church that made the movie is in Georgia, not Virginia.
October 12th, 2011 at 7:55 am
I haven’t seen it yet. It is interesting though that in decrying their lack of clarity regarding works based religion you are saying they didn’t “do” it right. :0)
October 12th, 2011 at 8:33 am
I thought this was a good review of Courageous. Although I have not seen the film yet, I have seen Sherwood’s other productions. Was the review a little too harsh on the movie? Maybe so. This film is bringing attention to an area of concern in our culture (and in my own life) whether you are Christian or not. The primary message does seem to focus primarily on the Law of God with a hint of the Gospel. Non-Christians need the Law to drive them to Christ. As a Christian, I delight in the Law of God and seek to obey Him in response to the work of Christ on my behalf. As I continue to fail in my obedience, I look to Christ who kept the Law of God perfectly for His church. If you want people to hear the Law and Gospel take them church this coming Lord’s Day. In fact, I invite you to attend Providence OPC this Sunday. We meet at Midway Villiage in Rockford, IL at 9:30 am (Sunday School) and 10:45 am (Worship). Visit our website providencerockford.org for more info. If you want to watch a film go to the theater. I think Heather Miller and Ben Weaver had some helpful comments.
October 12th, 2011 at 8:38 am
For me this movie is directed toward Christians and what biblical fatherhood should look like. Not necessarily a gospel sharing witness to the secular world, though it does contain a scene of sharing the gospel (sounded a little arminian to me).
This is a message the evangelical world desperately needs.
I would agree with his assessment of “Facing the Giants” though. I just don’t think Courageous does the same thing.
I guess this is the type of review we should expect from two-kingdom theology advocates.
October 12th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Eyes rolling
October 12th, 2011 at 8:45 am
Lee, Scripture clearly gives us a “two kingdoms” theology. By the way that was a cheap shot. Not all advocates of a “two kingdoms” view mean the same thing.
October 12th, 2011 at 8:58 am
This review is most disappointing. It smacks of an elitist snobbery which not only denigrates an honorable Christian film, but would impose sectarian standards upon brethren with whom we will share an eternity in glory where we will have lain aside our differences.
I have defended White Horse Inn, and Mike Horton particularly, against many in his “courageous” stand on WHAT IS THE GOSPEL. This review however is utterly untenable.
October 12th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Lee, the message the evangelical world and secular world desperately needs is Christ and his saving benefits. I do share your concern about the state of fatherhood (and motherhood) in the church and the world. Christians and non-Christians should be concerned about that. We are concerned about it for the sake of God’s glory and the welfare of the common good. Loving God and our neighbors.
October 12th, 2011 at 9:21 am
One at our church observed that “Courageous” portrays a victorious Christianity based on one’s personal devotion, piety, and sanctification. As one submits to God, one automatically improves one’s life, marriage, career, and culture. Ha! A postmillennial pipedream if ever there was one.
Will all people with “vision”* hate Parisi’s review?
(* That is, American Vision, Vision Forum, charismatic visionaries, and Federal Vision folk!)
October 12th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Wow! And I thought people get bent out of shape when I critique something!
It has been said here in various forms that the movie clearly “preaches” the gospel. But that response oversimplifies the problem. Art strives to communicate, but not in such a plain and direct way as that. Taking one quotation or bit of dialogue or even scene from a movie and saying “see, this character says that ‘it’ [whatever 'it' is] is not about our good works, therefore the movie cannot be presenting a resolution-oriented moralistic message is like asserting that any magazine which had a large and clear disclaimer on the cover stating “Lust is wrong: This magazine is not an aide for illicit sexual fantasy” could not possibly contain pornography. The message communicated by the whole of a movie, novel, etc. cannot be undone by the simple inclusion of the line “this movie does not communicate that message.”
October 12th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Why should Christians not use any and all media and art to get across not only the gospel but also traditional morality. The athiests and humanists certainly do. By presenting sex as outside of marriage as the norm in fiction they have brought it into fact. The tragedy of modernity is that people are more interested and susceptible to fiction than argument, well written sermons and reason.
October 12th, 2011 at 11:01 am
This review is ridiculous. God is glorified in this movie, even if it isn’t completely to your liking. The people who produced this movie are still sinners, even if they are redeemed sinners, so you should stop being so critical because it couldn’t possibly be perfect.
October 12th, 2011 at 11:40 am
I would very much like this commentator to let us know what kind of movie would you like to see. Perhaps a reading of the Westminster Confession? Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God? Would you be satisfied then or would you comment if the actors had too much feeling in their voices, emoting feelings in the audience?
You also did not recommend a movie which other movies can aspire to. Movies (dependent on content) are adiaphora and can be enjoyed. I would understand if the motive or heart of the movie were impure or sinful. I will not be seeing “The Way” after the way that Martin Sheen lambasted Leviticus on The West Wing. Sheen has never repented for blaspheming God in that episode and he wants us to believe that this is a good and pure movie the whole family should see.
But this movie is made by Christians for Christians as an alternative to the garbage produced by Hollywood. The Gospel is there, maybe it doesn’t hit all the points in the Westminster Shorter Catechism but the content was reasonable. No blasphemy, not sexual scenes, no indecency (unlike Soul Surfer and Jumping the Broom).
Some perspective please Sir. I hope you are not a hypocrite and that you given up movie going/watching since you’ve become a Christian. After all, you have the church, right?
October 12th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Movie: +1
Review: -1
October 12th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
It’s always funny to me when people say “You shouldn’t judge / critique / nitpick.” Umm … are you judging my judgment? Or critiquing my critique?
I think it’s totally fine to review a movie and point out its possible shortcomings. The article made me “think”. It’s important to think through the deeper implications of what is out there in the name of Christianity. Instead of getting upset like “But the movie was soooo great, how dare you say anything bad about it!” Maybe just say “Well that was somebody’s opinion.” And then leave it at that.
I appreciate the review. But I believe you won’t find a mainstream theater movie out there which proclaims the whole counsel of God, with a complete Gospel message, and is entertaining to the masses. Yeah so the movie probably is a bit weak in terms of the simplistic, moralistic message. I just don’t think anything deeper than that would fly in our society, unfortunately. I mean I guess it’s good to have a clean family film out there, but I don’t expect much from popular Christian Movies. I kind of equate it to Christian radio. I don’t see “inspirational” contemporary Christian music as being life-changing, although every station claims it is, playing testimonials of someone coming to Christ by hearing an upbeat song. I am not sure how someone gets convicted of their sinfulness and asks Jesus to save them by hearing “Oooh, I love the way you hold me! By my side you’ll always be!” There ARE some great theologically rich songs/hymns out there but I have yet to hear them on the radio
October 12th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Mark Stewart
The “resolution” that was handed out after the movie presses home further the concerns I share with this reviewer… A Christian should never commit to a resolution that does not clearly display his dependence on the grace of God in Christ for every nook and cranny of his life…
October 12th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Wow, Dean, that response really is not called for. I don’t think your comments follow from the review at all; it would be better for you to actually interact with the points he is making, whether you agree or not. Also, I’m not quite sure how you plan on consistently following your movie-watching plan if you can’t watch any movies Sheen is in because of that one scene in West Wing.
From one who often finds himself hypocritical, Mark
October 12th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Movie -1
Review +1
October 12th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
I am confused by this critique!
The writer (Anthony P )has his website that is listed at the top of this review so I clicked over. On his website he endorses and had a role in the making of a TV series called “The Black Dawn” described as “A marvelously dark and forbidding, scary storyline” Yikes!
Doesn’t sound like good, gospel saturated family viewing. And also his work also promotes a female singer who is performing regularily in the L.A. club scene. Noble, pure?
Not sure. But thinking that the reviewer has enough of maybe his own shortcomings(matt7:3-5) to worry about rather than picking on a movie and producers that more than likely will be used by God to impact many for good. Our Heavenly Father is amazing like that!
My husband and I are just so thankful to finally be able to actually go to the theatre and watch something. We take the whole command of turning and fleeing from evil literally
and so don’t take part in watching any of what Hollywood dishes out.
I am wondering if just maybe jealousy has a part to play in this stinging review? Their films have had much success and the reviewer is in the film/media industry.
Pride is a nasty thing. I feel saddened that the WhiteHorse actually posted this review.
October 12th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
The bride of Christ needs less talkers and more doers – read the book of Proverbs and the book of James. The example of this movie should admonish people in blogs and chat rooms like this one (self included) to be the church, not just criticize it.
October 12th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Thanks for this. You expressed many of my own misgivings about this film. It has good intentions in abundance, to be sure, but those can lead to other places too.
Even if we accept the dubious proposition that a movie’s job is to preach a message (by Telling Not Showing, of course), the overriding message that this one preaches is “You need to resolve to become a better person, and you do that by doing better things. In fact, here’s a list of good deeds you should resolve to do. And if you mess up, too bad; now you’re Doubly Accountable.” That’s the polar opposite of the Gospel, token evangelism scene notwithstanding. As Paul wrote in Galatians, “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3).
@Sherry: The book of Revelation also has “A marvelously dark and forbidding, scary storyline.” Just saying.
October 12th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Sherry and Ariel
Sherry: The reviewer isn’t “picking” on anyone. He’s a movie reviewer. That’s his job.
Ariel: So it’s not good to criticize/critique someone that criticizes/critiques someone else?
October 12th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Take Sherry’s advice and check out the website of the reviewer. The message from Black Dawn: “Trust yourself.” What gospel was the reviewer preaching in that “work of art?” White Horse should think twice before they allow this reviewer space in the future.
October 12th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Ad hominem – “an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it”
October 12th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
I must politely disagree with Mr. Parisi. It may be true that, from an artistic standpoint, compared to top secular movies, COURAGEOUS falls short of what multimillion dollar production companies using professional actors can produce. But I would argue that the producers of COURAGEOUS weren’t trying to “compete” with them.
Since you say you are “less concerned with how individual Christians personally choose to interact with the film”, I won’t go into detail explaining how much I enjoyed being able to view a movie with my entire family without having to worry about foul language or innappropriate behavior, or that as parents we were challenged to think about our priorities in light of eternity. What a rare treat to watch a movie in the theater that supports our family’s values, rather than going against them.
You bemoan that “Art being reduced as a vehicle for sermonizing is problematic enough,” but the truth is that every form of art conveys a message (sermon)in some way; whether overtly or not.
You state that “The emphasis on personal morality and simplistic transformation turn this film into a superficial lecture rather than a robust exploration of life as a Christian father.” Every movie simplifies the true story, because there’s only so much you can cover in 2 hours. It sounds as though you expected it to cover what a book or sermon series might cover.
Yes, the main character tells his pastor that he want’s to know what God expects of him. Isn’t this a question that most people will come to ask if they stop to think of their relationship with God? You mention that, “Six weeks later he’s typed up a list of resolutions and is on a mission to live up to each and every one of them.” But you skipped the scene in-between that shows him pouring over his Bible. This wasn’t “personal morality”. This was the character seeking God’s direction and wisdom.
Regarding “…the “manly” vocation of police officer”…”used as the icon of fatherhood,” Did we watch the same movie? the characters success and devotion as police officers was a stark contrast to their lack of sacrificial devotion as fathers. The point was to show that these men weren’t lazy slackers, but they needed to have God change their priorities. What were they doing after hours? Hanging out with each other rather than spending time with their family.
The father who was glorious to me was Javier, the hispanic father who was crying out to God in full dependence for a means to provide for his family. He showed love and care at home to his wife (who did not just “stand by and look on approvingly”). We see her struggle with fear, doubt, temptation and conviction.
I’m not at all suprised that the LA Times, NY Times etc. don’t have positive reviews of this film. They don’t share my world view. They don’t believe that there is freedom in following the biblical model for families where the father is the head of the home and the wife is a supportive help-meet. I’m confident Sherwood’s goal wasn’t to satisfy the secular movie critics.
I’m a non-denominational evangelical but because of geographic moves we have attended a PCA church for the past 4 years and a Southern Baptist church for the 4 years prior. From my view, the PCA church emphasizes grace and the gospel at the risk of minimizing personal responsibility and righteous living. On the other hand, the Southern Baptist church emphasizes personal responsibility at the risk of minimizing the daily application of the gospel. If you are coming from the PCA point of view, the Sourthern Baptist view can seem so far away and wrong (and vice versa). I’m convinced that we need a balanced view where total dependence on the gospel is coupled with a passion for righteous living…neither is a substitute for the other.
Respectfully,
Deb
October 12th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Mostly a very sad review.
To sum up, the gospel is, “an announcement that God has reconciled sinners to himself through Jesus Christ.”
I might ask, what does the practical living out of the gospel every day look like? I think the movie showed me that very well. Was I offended that God was portrayed as someone who doles out mercy whenever he is asked? Nope. Cause when I was a babe in the faith, that’s how he fed me so I’d learn to trust him with the BIG stuff, like my eternal destiny and soul & life.
The author of the review lacks any sense of the means of critiquing art. Where’s your sense of symbolism, archetypes, and the meaning and purpose behind why a story fits together and makes sense? The characters were who they were for a purpose.
As reformed Christians are we not allowed to laugh and be slightly entertained a bit too? I thought Dean’s comments were spot on. The “Evangelicalism” our reviewer seems to enjoy is the repeated refrain of “sinner, sinner, sinner” with measly dolip of grace.
I never got the sense in this movie that any of the characters were acting out of prideful selfrighteousness. The main character lost his daughter and that’s what it took to humble his heart… (self-righteous or emptying himself?)
So the punch-line is, “Christ was courageous for us when we were not. This is the good news that changes everything.”
Isn’t the change that is wrought the ability to have courage in life? The movie is a clear exposition of what the punch line of the review means. Just because Jesus isn’t the main character and star doesn’t mean it is not God glorifying.
The distance between the head and the heart is the longest journey to travel, and, I surmise that the pundits of this movie are a little cold in the heart. God can absolutely move the heart through the arts.
October 12th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Hi everyone,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. As discussion continues I wanted to address some of the points raised and offer some additional thoughts.
I’d like to re-affirm what was acknowledged in my review––that the gospel was mentioned in a few lines of dialogue. It was not absent or denied. What I’ve sought to raise is a concern that these mentions are overshadowed by what the story accomplishes as a whole. The primary message of the film (which from what I’ve read seems like an intentional emphasis) is a call to better fatherhood. This is certainly a good imperative for Christians to uphold, but for a film that’s all about taking a message to the broader world I find myself concerned with this approach as the law, not the gospel becomes our core witness. Any artist should want their work to be discussed, even if the response is critical. I hope the filmmakers at Sherwood Baptist feel the same.
However, another issue I’m seeing is a tendency to think of art only in terms of providing a simple “message”. Our culture is very politicized and polarized right now and our pragmatic American background becomes very evident when we see a piece of art only useful when it conveys an idea we agree with. But culture is not just a means to an end and all of creation is worthy of our attention and wonder, even for sheer beauty or imagination alone. These values are solely lacking in our world today.
Ultimately, White Horse Inn is meant to be a conversation between Christians and I hope our dialogue here can embrace that. One reason I wrote this post is that I felt conversation about Courageous in the Christian world had thus far been lacking. My goal with this critique is not to boycott or condemn but to offer another perspective and provoke further thought as everyone thinks about the film. As someone who deeply cares about our cultural life and works in media alongside many Christians and non-Christians, I think these issues are important and worth discussing with great care and I hope you feel the same.
Thanks for reading!
October 13th, 2011 at 4:02 am
[...] thought more of this just yesterday, when I read a White Horse Inn writer’s gracious criticisms of the film Courageous. Though I agreed with many of his thoughts, others at least need some [...]
October 13th, 2011 at 6:05 am
Anthony,
Thanks for being so courageous (pun intended) to risk the wrath of the cyber-Bride of Christ and express your honest opinion about this film. I wish you would have been treated more graciously by the recipients of such amazing grace.
Shoobacca
October 13th, 2011 at 6:14 am
If the concern is that the films cliches and sentiment is being used in an overkill fashion off the pulpit, pushing aside the clear preaching of the Word, then the problem is in the person behind the pulpit, not in the movie.
October 13th, 2011 at 7:13 am
[...] Read the rest. [...]
October 13th, 2011 at 7:51 am
Your weak explanation is worse that your review.
You say, “American background becomes very evident when we see a piece of art only useful when it conveys an idea we agree with. But culture is not just a means to an end and all of creation is worthy of our attention and wonder, even for sheer beauty or imagination alone.”
So, if “art”, as is secular movies, conveys sin as normal acceptable, but it is technically well done, you would think it a good movie? What movies do you think are good examples of an acceptable message?
And “culture is not a means to an end.” Culture is a means of working our our salvation to our end–being with Christ. What are you talking about? Why is this simple, good movie so problematic for you. Must the “gospel” be so hidden that you can’t find it before you would think a movie to be good?
You say: “This is certainly a good imperative for Christians to uphold, but for a film that’s all about taking a message to the broader world I find myself concerned with this approach as the law, not the gospel becomes our core witness.”
So, dads saying they need to be better dads and then doing something about it is too much law for you? You don’t find the gospel in this noble attempt at santification? You don’t find the gospel emphasized in this movie?
You strain gnats and swollow camels.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:04 am
Newsflash–”Art” is being used to sermonize ALL THE TIME, especially by the Left. So much for Christians seeking to do ALL to the glory of God (especially if they probably have an Arminian slant).
I’m Reformed, but maybe not Reformed enough because I sometimes get the Willies when our Reformed brethren downplay an emphasis on personal piety. Certainly the Cross is central, but so is the call to “become what you are” (1 Corinthians).
The truth is, how many of us at the time of our regeneration fully understood all of the implications of the Cross and sanctification? None. Therefore, is it not POSSIBLE that God could use this film to draw people to Himself and draw them deeper in over time through the power of His Word?
October 13th, 2011 at 8:48 am
Haven’t seen the movie. Have seen the others. The reviewer has some valid points about Christian approach in a secular world. It’s easy to see a movie such as this and pass it on to someone we think needs Christ’s message.. same with a book.. we can pass on a copy of The Shack, to someone in need.., or the latest CD of Christian music. It’s presenting a message to a secular world in a secular manner. What is the point.. that we need to pass on Christ’s words, not the ginned up, flashy interpretation; but sacred scripture to a secular world. This is easy evangelism, not real ministry. These things supplement real scripture and only real scripture reading can help anyone interpret Holy words from words with holy interpretation.
Real ministry is in the trenches, next door or next town, talking individually about our faith, following the example of Christ and sharing the gospel. I’m glad to see a good values movie on the big screen, and look forward to taking my kids, but at the end of the movie, we will discuss how we can put our faith into action and live it out, versus buying a ticket and feeling like we are part of the kingdom.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:07 am
I am not interested in watching this movie (no matter if my friends say I should be) and I appreciate much of your review.
However, when you say, “Making movies falls far outside the bounds of what the church has been called to do.”, you misrepresent what they are trying to do. First, they are not just making movies for profit or pleasure. Second, the thing you think the church is called to do is what they are probably trying to do with this movie whether or not you think they are doing that well. Third, God has not spoken in his Word regarding whether or not movies are an acceptable means of spreading his truth. No matter if you believe it’s wrong or right, be sure to have grace for your brother who disagrees.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:55 am
[...] WHITE HORSE INN has posted a (negative) review at Courageous Christianity? – White Horse Inn Blog The reviewer has been largely taken to task for his panning of the movie. Bob, elder, RBC [...]
October 13th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
James W.: Please don’t pass a copy of The Shack to anyone. It’s utter garbage. Word.
October 13th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
This reviewer saw a different movie than I did. This comment is just strange: “Violent shootouts and car chase stunts ensure being a godly dad also looks as glorious as possible.” Um, for one thing, they’re cops. And another thing I loved about Courageous was the fact that our “hero” is beaten to a pulp at the end…loses the fight. That’s not Michael Bay. That’s very unHollywood today. It’s doing what’s right even if you do lose. A very nice touch.
The Gospel is not an add on in this film…it is the center. How appreciative I am that Christian men are seen talking about the Gospel unashamedly. How many Christian movies recently, even movies about missionaries, can’t even put a prayer on the screen for fear of being too religious.
I didn’t care for Facing the Giants, and I liked Fireproof, but thought it had many weaknesses. I love Courageous…a thoroughly successful film. It’s not high art, but nothing in Hollywood these days is High Art either, and Courageous is very successful film-making. People wept, laughed, cheered, and were inspired…for all the right things. Why throw a wet blanket on that?
Lastly, to the other commenters, I may have missed it, but I don’t recall anyone speaking to the dead in the film. A grieving father asks God if it would be alright if He would tell his daughter something. It was beautiful.
October 13th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
I’m sorry, Anthony,
I missed your post in the comments section:
“However, another issue I’m seeing is a tendency to think of art only in terms of providing a simple “message”. Our culture is very politicized and polarized right now and our pragmatic American background becomes very evident when we see a piece of art only useful when it conveys an idea we agree with. But culture is not just a means to an end and all of creation is worthy of our attention and wonder, even for sheer beauty or imagination alone. These values are solely lacking in our world today.”
I don’t think anyone really disagrees with this, it’s just that your comment has absolutely nothing to do with Courageous. Because someone makes a film with a message doesn’t mean they are against other kinds of wholesome art that is for beauty or creativity. Why slam one for the sake of the other?
You know who you sound like, don’t you? Franky Schaeffer. What ever happened to him?
October 13th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Chris,
You said “Third, God has not spoken in his Word regarding whether or not movies are an acceptable means of spreading his truth.”
All truth is God’s truth so in one sense all kinds of mediums can be used to spread/convey truth. But the Church, as the Church, is called to use the mediums God HAS commanded in His Word. Word (reading and preaching) and Sacrament (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) ministry and prayer. This is one of the differences between Reformed and non-reformed (SBC) churches like Sherwood Baptist Church. They took it upon themselves (probably with good but misguided intentions) to create a production company to spread truth. That is not the commission the Lord gave his Church.
That is not to say a christian or group of christians can’t do this as a vocation. They can and should if they feel compelled to do so. It’s just not what the Church is called and commanded to do as the Church.
That being said, I thank God that the truth of Christ is being spread even if it is done imperfectly. And yes, the Lord can even use these movies to draw people to Himself. But what we really need are more churches faithfully preaching Christ and administering the Sacraments in the name of our Triune God. He HAS promised to use these means to build His Church.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
I got to say I find this review very hard to digest. I looks like your reading in and stretching some things. I gives me the feel like you put on a nice and new white glove and ran your fingers under the countertops, behind bookshelves, and under tables edges to just find some dirt and dust that was left uncleaned. I call it going to the extreme. I believe things can always be done better but I dont see good works being emphasized. It does not sound like you and me saw the same movie.
October 13th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
[...] EXCERPTED FROM Kingdom Of God Worship source http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/10/11/courageous-christianity/ [...]
October 14th, 2011 at 7:47 am
I like their way of making movies better than your way of not making movies. Most of my favorite authors are reformed, but in this article you remind me of the one trait that turns me off to reformed theology…arrogance.
October 14th, 2011 at 8:41 am
I have a hard time swallowing this review because it in no way represents the movie itself.
It certainly does seem to represent the other three Sherwood Baptist movies.
I do believe the Kendricks are presenting a shallow Christianity, at least judging by the other movies. We are all tempted to do this. It’s part of that tendency to reduce everything down to ‘living the gospel’ (cough), and “preach the gospel at all times – if necessary use words.”
Even if they want to focus on our “living in LIGHT of the gospel” – they wrongly make it appear that if we do everything God commands, things will start to go right in our lives (with perhaps a few minor setbacks). That just is not reality. And when you misrepresent reality, if your intent is to get people to believe the gospel, then you undermine the very true message of the gospel that it is supposed to convey.
I did like Fireproof, btw. And when I see this one I’ll probably enjoy it BECAUSE my mind will fill in the gaps. But unbelievers don’t have the information with which to fill in those gaps correctly. It’s the same issue with Purpose Driven Life. A solidly saved person with the basics of theology understood, reading PDL, will not be thrown off course. However, a completely naive unsaved person will read PDL and WILL be because they will be given false assurance. We tend to do this as a habit, as Luther suggests “putting the best construction on all that our neighbor says and does” but taking it way too far.
If I cut that kind of slack for my Mormon neighbors, for example — if I put the best construction on what my neighbor says and does to the extent we do it for popular evangelicals and their products, then every Mormon I know would be going to heaven, because they SAY all the right words. It’s only when you press them on the definitions that the truth comes out. But no one wants to go any deeper than that. And even if you do, most Christians these days are so ignorant of Scripture they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference anyway.
There’s nothing in any of the Sherwood Baptist movies that sticks out to me, that challenges works-righteous groups such as Catholics, Mormons, JW’s etc, for their false teachings. That means the gospel is not included in a clear way.
October 14th, 2011 at 8:43 am
James W “we can pass on a copy of The Shack, to someone in need..,”
I would rather not… that would only endanger them further.
October 14th, 2011 at 9:04 am
“Given the clear sincerity and earnest work put in by the filmmakers, it’s hard to know the best way to respond to all this.”
How about the refreshing sound of silence? Given that ripping the hair from each others head to the greater glory of God has been raised to an art form among so-called Christian bloggers, why not just be quiet for a while? I missed the theologically correct films being produced by the Young Reckless and Reformed crowd. Maybe you can point them out?
October 14th, 2011 at 9:17 am
BTW apparently Wretched namelessly criticized this article on the show yesterday, implying rather snarkily that it is an example of shooting inside the camp. He’s been on a rant lately about ‘bad discerners’ and ‘shooting in a circle’ and ‘FIRE! AIM! READY!” (But according to him (and Phil Johnson) a few days ago it’s usually women who are guilty of being too snarky. I guess Anthony is the exception? Don’t ask me… Todd’s the one who thinks this article’s ‘tone’ is uncharitable).
So he’s happy to shoot back at Anthony and White Horse Inn, for “shooting” inside the camp. But he’s careful not to name the author. Please listen to the clip they have here, click play on the left hand side. (I apologize if you don’t want us to post links)
http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=313C2967A3022A549ABE4FF95A6C4574&page=1
Sigh.
October 14th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Boy that guy on Wretched is annoying! Maybe he’s an acquired taste. He says this as the theme for Courageous – “The point is, Get Saved and then lead your family, in that order.” I think that just highlights the concerns of the reviewer, doesn’t it? It sounds like getting saved is just part of the checklist. He then accuses the reviewer and those who posted it as “sectarians.” Why do evangelical Christians seem to take their lead from Jerry Springer when it comes to exaggerating and misinterpreting each other’s words so often?
And the Wretch guy is wrong – the Anthony did try to praise the movie as much as he was able to.
I do think it is unfortunate that the reviewer felt the need to point to secular reviews. I think there is a place for these kinds of movies, we should encourage Christian filmmakers, and it is difficult to expect secular culture to be able to interpret it fairly.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
The movie sends a great message of people working together thru difficult times. i thought that the movie was centered around Christ. Something different than what Hollywood has to offer. I believe that these kinds of movies can help lead a person to explore God’s Holy Word. Thus coming to the understanding that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father.
Remember God works in ways that we may not always understand.
The author of this blog shouldn’t be to quick to sum the message of this movie.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
This writer’s mindset is exactly the reason Christian films aren’t taken seriously by anyone but Christians (and even then, not all of them). The point is to reach NEW people with a message, not deliver the same message to people who have already heard it a thousand times. He also demonstrates a basic lack of understanding regarding cinematic qualities of film and visual storytelling. The type of movie this author seems to advocate would be stagnant, derivative, and uninteresting…even by Sunday school standards. And the problem is there are already too many Christian films like that.
October 14th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Anthony,
I haven’t seen the movie. I have seen the three other Sherwood films.
I’ve read your article three times.
I’ve digested it.
And I think you may have strike a chord with many people. You mention of trying to spark conversation has indeed done that, and while many of the people here seem content to attack, I thank you for being both gracious and respectful in spite of overly harsh criticism.
As a fellow filmmaker who has not felt any calling to create material like the good folks at Sherwood, it is a breath of fresh air to read that I am not alone.
Keep up the good work. We should write something together. XD
As for the rest of my Christian brothers and sisters here who I think have been less than charitable towards a fellow believer (and I’m anticipating a similar and likely response towards myself). . .
May God continue to bless you.
–DS
October 15th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
I disagree, the gospel is presented in all of the Sherwood movies, and is refreshing to see in media. This is a message all men, even Christians need to hear, and I thank God the Kendrick brothers are brave enough to stand up and make these movies.
October 16th, 2011 at 3:55 am
This doesn’t surprise me at all! Horton and crew have been moving toward antinomianism for years. The last ‘WHI’ I endured (and I used to listen weekly) was one in which they practically mocked believers who strove for good works as part of their sanctification.
Beware of this “gospel-centered” sanctification message from the White Horse Inn. It has moved to a new phase – it is no longer a celebration of what Christ has done but is now a mockery of good works and effort in the Christian life. No, they don’t “save” us, but try reading a New Testament epistle without stumbling over how many imperatives their are and how intense our effort should be to honor Christ with the pattern of our lives.
October 16th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
If movies are “outside the bounds” of the church, should a Christian go to see them?
Regarding lists of resolutions, check out Jonathan Edward’s list which he read every week to keep his mind on his duty to God at: http://www.apuritansmind.com/the-christian-walk/jonathan-edwards-resolutions/
God bless,
Jess
October 17th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more with this review. I found the movie to be quite moving and well-done. What disturbed me, while attending (at a secular movie theatre), was the number of empty seats. Would have been nice for the greater Christian community in my city to support Christian works such as these.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:18 am
This movie review does have some valid points, though I’m not in complete agreement with everything he said. I think much of our response to something like this has to be largely subjective (though I’m no fan of postmodernism, lol!). Not that we cannot or should not examine any of it objectively – but because of the nature of the medium, the subjective does come largely into play here as well. If you go to the theatre expecting a solid sermon, you’re going to be disappointed. If you go looking at the experience and the overall message they have attempted to convey, it can be an edifying thing. Yes, there were some problems with this movie, but I think as a whole they’re showing great improvement with each production. In ten years I won’t be surprised if we see some incredible stuff being produced by this group.
If you consider the movie a challenge to believers, it has much to offer. Not all of us have that first-hand example of godly men to follow in our homes or churches. In my life, even though I was raised in the church, I have very rarely seen men who live the kind of example this movie sets. More recently, I have seen some men putting themselves out there for their families and really taking on that headship responsibility seriously. Not many, but a few. For them, this movie is a great reminder and challenge to keep on that path.
I think this movie strives, at least to some degree, to remove the stigma associated with men who love and cherish their families. The idea of a man sacrificing for his family and putting them ahead of his job and worldly/selfish ideals is largely foreign these days. So, good for them for trying to show us something different, something obedient and honouring to God. I’d love to see something like this to challenge women in our roles too!
Courageous has the potential to really challenge Christian men to get off the couch and start living in that vulnerable, difficult place of leading and protecting their families as Christ loves the church. That message is desperately needed in the church today, and if it takes an art form to do it, why not? Yes, it would absolutely be better if churches had solid preaching from the pulpit and proper discipleship happening within the body. But the reality is, that’s not happening much anymore. Not in my city, that’s for sure. So, I guess we’ll take what we can get!
I wouldn’t recommend this movie as a way to witness to unbelievers because it would be too easy to confuse the moralism with the Gospel. But as a tool to encourage Christian men, I think it has much merit that should not be ignored.
@Mark, yes Todd Friel/Wretched Radio is a bit of an acquired taste, but well worth it. I found him a bit abrasive at first, but once you listen to him for a while you’ll find it’s just that he’s so passionate about the word of God. Wretched is a great ministry.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Rev. Foresman,
COURAGEOUS is not doing as well as FIREPROOF, even though it is a better film, but it is doing well for an independent film. In it’s third week, it is still in the top ten, and it is #5 if you rank by what they call per-screen-average. That is, theaters showing COURAGEOUS are more crowded than theaters showing most Hollywood movies out there right now. And it hasn’t shown in many markets yet. Let’s keep encouraging people we know to see it at least once. I think they’ll talk it up once they’ve seen it.
October 17th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I completely understand the concerns of the reviwer and agree with him at many points. I have a more personal concern. Namely, that now I will have to endure many people in the church chiding me for not seeing the movie yet. I will have to hear for weeks about how this movie has really challenged them in their Christian walk. Sadly, these same people rarely if ever show up to any of the wonderful Bible studies at our church taught faithfully by men who labor ardously in their call to serve Christ and his church. And these same people rarely respond so postively to our Pastors faithful preaching of the doctrines of grace as they will to this fanciful, inspiritional tale! The day to day grind of living with jars of clay isn’t quite as marketable.
Of course what do I know, I may not even be a true Christian… after all, I haven’t even seen The Passion of the Christ?
October 17th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Cup of Joe,
Do you really expect the fellow saints you have such disdain for to respond positively in the same way to good sermons as to a movie? They are not the same thing, nor do they elicit the same kind of response. Movies are aimed at the emotions. Like any well crafted story, they can use that emotional power (laughter, tears, thrills, etc) in an empty way, or a corrupting way, or an uplifting way. Empty is meaningless, silly entertainment. Corrupting is tying those emotions to impure images or the glorification of sin. Uplifting films tie those emotions to virtue, and in this case, faith as well. That’s the power of art. You don’t need to look down your nose at brothers and sisters for enjoying it or sharing it. Oh, yes, and if its true these same folks don’t come to Bible study, consider the possibility that they might be shy about coming because there is a heavy air of condemnation and superiority from some who attend.
October 17th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Wayne,
First of all there was nothing in my comments that spoke of disdain, merely frustration. I think perhaps your emotions are causing you to interpret things with some over-sensitivity. My frustration is just that this will be for many just another “spritual experience” that is substituted for genuine growth in God’s Word.
As for the reason, the people don’t come to Bible study… I have no idea nor did I indicate that I did know their reasons. But as for the heavy air of condemnation, it does seem that you have genuine knowledge of that as seen in all of your comments both to the reviewer and others.
Take a deep breath my friend.
October 18th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Joe,
I took a deep breath, and feel better. But you used the word “endure” regarding brothers and sisters who found something that moved and inspired them. That’s disdain. I apologize for thinking you meant it as a putdown that these people don’t come to Bible study. I’m sure you meant it positively.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Joe, I think you have valid concerns and I share your frustration though I’m not in leadership. Certainly an emotional experience is not a substitute for proper discipleship and Bible study/teaching. I think it can be a nice addition though in the right circumstances.
(Oh, and I haven’t seen The Passion of the Christ either, lol).
October 18th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
My feeling is that this is a review, I’m kind of guessing that Siskel and Ebert didn’t have people getting all offended that they somehow were pick, pick, picking at what the movie was all about. There is a time and place for reviewing a movie, this reviewer chose a forum that was a group of Christians and he expressed his views on the film from a film creator’s view. I don’t think that it’s a slam on the film itself in anyway in fact he was very kind about how he expressed himself. I find it kind of funny when peole start crying foul that “Reformed” are so criticle of others when it’s in this type of setting. Yes, there can be a level of superiority at times (believe me I’ve seen it) but there is a forum for critique, there is a forum for discussion, and I believe this is the place seeing as how it’s among believers and not an “out in the street” preaching to the world how they should view this movie. …..Just my thoughts.
October 19th, 2011 at 6:31 am
Spencer,
It is one thing to critique a film (one aspect of this blog). It is a whole different matter to make a statement regarding how this film affects the work of the Church:
“While surely produced with good intentions, Courageous is likely to further entrench the misguided culture wars and bring harm to the Christian witness in the world.”
This is where (in my mind) the author crosses the line of simply critiquing a film.
October 25th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
It amazes me how easily we confuse the gospel of Christ with works-based religion and religious formula. If the Kendrick brothers, and Sherwood, are gonna join forces with Vision Forum, that should be a red flag of legendary proportion about the direction Sherwood films will be heading, and about the state of their “gospel”.
November 29th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
[...] Parisi writes a review of Courageous for the White Horse Inn blog. “Sherwood continues to make films with God functioning primarily as a tool for our lives [...]
January 21st, 2012 at 11:01 pm
This review is nothing more than the critics personal interaction with the film and nothig more. I just finished watching the movie and his critical skills and even attention to major details make me question whether we watched the same film. And quoting the mainstream media to support his review takes the cake. Where is Mr. Parisi’s film that encourages Christian fathers to lead their families? It’s certainly not on his website!
Dr Cary Voss
Professor of Rhetoric
January 23rd, 2012 at 1:43 am
Having just seen this movie tonight, and after reading the review, I can only say one thing: thank you Anthony!
It is good to see that someone isn’t afraid to stand up for their view regarding something that is supposed to represent the kingdom. I am personally sick and tired of people supporting every single “christian” oriented thing (movie, music, art, t-shirt, etc.) simply because its christian. Are christians who attempt to create art immune from criticism? Can we not say anything negative about their work because the use the word “God” in it? No! A bad movie, is a bad movie whether the gospel is presented or not. Simply because a character says “Jesus Christ died for your sins” does not earn that film an Academy Award or make it worthy of acclaim.
If we were really concerned with the spreading of the gospel through film, we should at least strive to make a movie that reaches a wide audience, and is watchable. As one commenter pointed out, the theater they were in was fairly empty. This is no fault of the inclusion of the gospel message in the film but rather a problem with the film itself.
Wrought with cliche, bad acting, and completely predictable dialogue, it makes me sad that this is the forefront of the “christian” movie scene. Not a single moment in this movie felt genuine and I couldn’t help but laugh at more than one dramatic scene. A commenter stated that the film avoided “some” stereotypes…really? Which ones? The poor Mexican family struggling to make ends meet? The daughter of a cop trying to date a gang member? The high moral workplace “test”? The characters were one-dimensional and the woman characters added virtually nothing of importance.
Lastly, while the gospel was shared to one of the characters, his “conversion” was an afterthought that received no attention whatsoever. This bothered me most of all. We don’t see him pray, ask for forgiveness, or anything even remotely repentant. From one scene to the next, he becomes an instant christian. More than anything, I think this sends a poor message to the “wider” audience this film is trying to reach.
I’ve said enough.
January 27th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
I am simply astounded at the criticisms of this film. It doesn’t have the Hollywood financial backing, but they still made a PHENOMENAL movie about christian fathers. You want to see America strong……….start at home, with strong, courageous fathers! Keep criticisms at bay….all I saw was an excellent film with a message that I can’t get out of my head. So grateful for a church who has a heart to do something like this. My hat goes off to you. God bless.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:03 am
Let me start by saying I’m a big fan of taking anything pop-culture Christianity produces with a grain of salt. I’m a big of fan of highly scrutinizing anything that pop-Christianity produces. This also seems to be the way the reformed leaders and the reformed circle as a whole handle everything, which is a good thing. As reformed people, we seem to have a more logical approach and we can see right through the shallowness of certain pop-Christianity things. Which is a good thing.
But sometimes I feel like the pendulum swings too far the other way.
Sometimes it feels like our need to highly scrutinize everything can cause an overreaction. The WHI review of Courageous was pretty harsh. This I feel is one such example of an overreaction. The film never claimed to be the be-all-end all of Christian living, nor did it claim to be profoundly theological or packed full of doctrine. The review accused it of focusing on works or morality, but that is simply not true. When the men decided to “man up” and make a commitment to be a better father and husband it was all predicted on being a follower of Jesus Christ and trusting God’s principles as revealed in the Bible for manhood and fatherhood. It wasn’t just “morality” as the review article presented it. In fact the main character said he was doing all of this with the help of God’s grace. I got the sense in the movie that the main characters truly wanted to be obedient to the Bible as a form of worship. They were convicted of how they were living their life as a father and husband, thus took action to redirect their efforts.
To me, this screams of the doctrine of sanctification, that God works in believers to mold them and shape them into better Christians and to be more Christlike and obedient to His principles and laws. But of course, the WHI review never mentioned this.
I’m not saying the film had no problems…there’s no perfect film that’s for sure. But it just felt like the review seemed to be unduly harsh. It almost felt like since the film wasn’t theologically profound enough for the elite reformed thinkers, they wrote a negative review about it and cautioned nobody else to watch it either.
This isn’t just my opinion but I asked a fellow Calvinist friend about this issue and he said he felt the same way about WHI’s review of the movie.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Courageous felt like a morality play with a little Jesus sprinkled on top. Its story was too clean cut, and it had the same “if you do this, God will bless you” ethos of Facing the Giants. Being fair to the secular movie reviewers, it’s not hard to see why Slant described it as “self-righteous.”
February 20th, 2012 at 1:01 am
Perhaps I don’t understand reformed theology as much as I thought I did. And apparently I don’t understand art at all. This church’s movies are clean, present the Gospel, illustrate that God isn’t just to be wound up on Sundays, encourage us to be committed to our duties, and teach several other lessons badly needed by Christians today. But according to at least one comment above and implied by the review and several other comments, the movies “aren’t very good.” Instead we are encouraged to watch movies like Gran Torino, which is full of obscenities and profanities, which is supposedly “incredible.”
The reviewer referred to negative reviews by secular outlets as support. IMO, if the NY Times praised it, then I’d be worried.
Whatever happened to “whatsoever things are pure, lovely, …, think on these things? Shouldn’t that be our criteria for art as well? Are we to understand that Christians should not support other Christians who are sincerely trying to get much needed messages out, but instead support ungodly people who already have tons of money, because their “artistic quality” is better? Is this indeed the “mind of Christ?”
February 20th, 2012 at 10:29 am
There are a lot of good comments on here but Bottome line is… this movie misrepresents Jesus Christ Our Lord and his saving Gospel message that we are sinners saved by GRACE wholly dependent on Him. We really have no power on our own to change or be good. In fact, according to one man that wrote much of the NT, our works are filthy rags and our attempts to be “better” fail when we focus on our own efforts.
True power comes from seeing the truth that we are powerless in the hands of a merciful and loving God, and even then He often leaves us in our life situations to “tough it out” so we will continually look to Him – There are no easy solutions to life, no quick turn arounds that come with the right amount of prayer. This is an illusion and lie that many churches in America have bought.
One big problem with the film is that while proportiung to address the struggle and pain of life (with a few sprinkled platitudes here and there) it assumes that all one has to do is buckledown, focus and you can overcome anything and everything. A nice idea but too pollyanna to be genuine and ignores the real struggle we have in this world with both daily survival and our sin nature – which we’ve inherited from Adam.
80% of marriages dissolve when one of their children dies because it is a heart-wrenching, soul killing experience which brings a multitude of emotions from guilt, confusion to anger and most couples not only blame themselves but each other.
Yet this strife was never even dipicted in the film, just some sadness.
So, no this film is not realistic at all and brings harm to our witness as people go into the theater in hopes of finding something that might help them get in touch with God and instead of finding grace, find a message of works/reward for those who can make a vow (forbidden by the bible btw) and keep it. Or just buckle down and be a better person/ parent etc.
People that really have lost a loved-one will be the most offended – they know.
If churches are going to engage in movie-making, they should affirm the gospel of grace, depict our weakness and utter dependence on Jesus, to save and KEEP us. And stop using the bible stories and Christ as examples on how to live. The bible is God’s rescue plan for a fallen people and Christ is Savior not a life coach.
Ron J.
April 25th, 2012 at 6:22 am
[...] White Horse Inn: a slightly controversial review, but straight out of the horse’s mouth. May contain [...]
April 29th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Oh, my. How come you even noticed what color they were? What color are you? Does it matter? REALLY?!
June 8th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
[...] Courageous, much of it extremely positive. As I sifted through it, I found a review over at The White Horse Inn that reflects my sentiments. It begins with [...]