Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the blog or about the author.

Thursday June 29, 2006

Claiming Superman

Superman Returns has hit the theatres, bringing the long-awaited return of the Man of Steel to the big screen. And as this movie hits the screen, opening to lukewarm but generally positive reviews, it seems that at least a couple of groups are intent on claiming Superman as their own.

Superman is Jesus Christ. Maybe not really Jesus Christ, but certainly a Christ-like figure. A type of Christ perhaps. It’s obvious, isn’t it? During a recent interview with Wizard magazine, Bryan Singer, Director of Superman Returns proclaimed “Superman is the Jesus Christ of superheroes.” When speaking to Entertainment Weekly magazine he said of this movie, “It’s a story about what happens when Messiahs come back…” Is Superman a Jesus figure? An article at Pastors.com, provided as a sermon outline and written by Stephen Skelton, claims that he is. Skelton says, “Singer is looking to tell the best story he can, and he has consciously pulled from the Gospel story. For us, the result is an opportunity to use the Superman story to share the Gospel.”

Stephen Skelton is the founder of The Entertainment Ministry, a company whose motto is “identifying God’s purposes in popular entertainment.” The company’s website says “we believe many stories that transcend social, racial and cultural barriers today do so because they contain spiritual truth for which all people have a God-given hunger. Accordingly, the ministry promotes a grassroots approach to using popular entertainment to engage a Christian worldview. To that end, we hope these Bible studies not only provide a time of good fellowship but also continue to equip the church with ways to reach the world beyond.” They create Bible studies based on popular television programs and films and ask, “Do you want to engage and energize your class…Do you want to bring Jesus to searchers ‘where they are’… Do you want to model the powerful parable approach of Christ… Then these Bible studies can serve you.”

Here are a few of the parallels to the story of Christ as told in Scripture. Do note that some of these may spoil the film for you, if you are intending to see it. I don’t really know. Because I haven’t seen the film and don’t ever recall reading a Superman comic I am unsure as to whether this is an original story, or a re-telling of an existing story. Skelton premises these quotes with this: “here are some items from the movie that can help you prepare an outreach message on Superman Returns.”

  • “As the story begins, Superman (our Christ figure) has ascended into the heavens. He has returned to his home planet Krypton to see if he is in fact the ‘only son.’ The time he is away from Earth is symbolic of the time between Christ’s ascension and return.”
  • “When Superman comes back, he finds a world much worse off than when he left. Most upsetting, Lois Lane has moved on. She has a fiance and a son named Jason (which is a variation of the name Jesus). There is some imagery here of the Virgin Birth. (Suffice it to say that the movie provides no other explanation—no explanatory conversation or flashback.)”
  • “When Superman arrives to stop him, [Lex] Luthor stabs Superman in the right side with a kryptonite dagger—which recalls the spear that pierced the right side of Christ. Thereafter, our superhero undergoes a brief re-enactment of the march of the Passion. Superman tries to crawl away from his persecutors while struggling under the weight of kryptonite poisoning.”
  • “Despite the deadly danger, Superman lifts this entire kryptonite-laced landmass into outer space, symbolically taking the weight of a world of sin upon himself. As in the Gospel story, this supreme act of sacrificial suffering has disastrous consequences and Superman plummets back toward the Earth—in the crucifixion pose.”
  • Rushed to the hospital, Superman lies near death. In the Daily Planet office, a proposed newspaper headline announces ‘Superman is Dead.’ However, a little later, back at the hospital, the room (like Christ’s tomb) is found empty—and Superman lives!

Skelton concludes, “In terms of Gospel imagery, Superman Returns is more than we could have hoped for. Plus, the film has action, eye-popping special effects (some used for Christic effect), and even a little romance.”

So there we have it. The church has claimed him. Superman is Jesus.

Or is he?

Superman is gay. Maybe not really gay, but certainly a gay-like figure. A type of homosexual perhaps. It’s obvious, isn’t it? In a recent much-discussed article, The Advocate, a popular and influential gay magazine asked “How Gay is Superman?” According to the article, he’s really gay. Or really gay-like, in any case. The article’s author, Alonso Duralde, reflects on why most of the entertainment he enjoyed as a child was geared towards women, and yet Superman resonated with him. “I was addicted to reruns of I Married Joan and old Ingrid Bergman flicks on the afternoon movie. I was the only boy in my sixth-grade class to read Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret. Nothing could make me change the channel faster than an old Rat Patrol or Daktari episode popping up in the middle of my afternoon of TV. So why was I drawn to these heroic tales of adventure and derring-do?”

Duralde suggests three theories. First, like most gay kids, superheroes have to keep their “difference” a secret. “As kids with a nascent understanding of our queerness, a lot of us tamped down our own fabulousness—not to keep Lois safe or to stem the Nazi menace, but to watch our backs.” In Superman he saw a man who was also wrestling with a hidden secret about his true identity. Second, comic books are a lot like soap operas. They are ongoing stories that build one upon the other and often look back to what has happened in the past. “For a gay kid who never got into soaps, apart from the occasional Search for Tomorrow episode with our housekeeper, comics were my first window into labyrinthine story lines that involved numerous characters.” And finally, superheroes are “totally hot.” “If you were a little boy in search of idealized masculine imagery—or a little girl starved for images of strong, powerful women-comic books were often where you got your fill. And a lot of those boys grew up and were inspired to make themselves over in their heroes’ image.”

He concludes, “Not for nothing does gay director Bryan Singer have an eye for how to make the Superman suit most flattering to Brandon Routh in Superman Returns. And rubber nipples weren’t the only way that director Joel Schumacher made Batman and Robin look even more homoerotic than usual in the two sequels he directed. The iconography of superheroes definitely pushes a button or two with many gay men.”

So there we have it. Homosexuals have claimed him. Superman is gay.

Or is he?

Which one is it? Is Superman the ultimate Jesus figure, or is he the ultimate homosexual figure? I’m quite comfortable suggesting that he cannot be both.

I don’t know that anyone can answer if there is something more to Superman than just a superhero. But this I do know: the belief that Superman appeals to unbelievers because they crave a Messiah is not premised on a sound understanding of Scripture. Unbelievers surely crave many things and perhaps even a kind of redemption. But an unregenerate heart, a heart in which the Spirit has not begun to work, cannot crave the Jesus Christ of the Bible. They may crave a false Christ, a Christ of their own making. But not the real Christ. not the Christ who saves. Jesus Himself tells us this. In John 7:7 He says, “The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil.”

What is there in an unbeliever that will make him respond favorably, on a spiritual level, to a Christ figure? According to the Bible, nothing. Until men have been regenerated, until the Spirit has begun to convict them of sin, there can be no move towards Him. There can be no acceptance of Him. There can be no desire for Him or perceived need of Him. Superman cannot be Jesus, the true Jesus, to your unbelieving friend of neighbor.

What is there in an unbeliever that will make him respond favorably, on a carnal level, to a gay figure? According to the Bible, plenty. Until men have been regenerated, until the Spirit has begun to convict them of sin, men will find solace in other sinners. They will find stories that affirm their sin and affirm their sinful choices. And, when looking in stories created by sinful men, they will never have far to look.

Superman isn’t Jesus. But I suppose he could be gay.

Comments (45) »


1. Mike S
June 29, 2006
11:06 AM

Tim,

Wasn’t it JRR Tolkien who said that great stories capture our imaginations because they reflect the True Story which is the great drama of redemption played out in history? (or something like that, Modern English lit was 20+ years ago there’s a lot of dust and mileage on that part of my brain)

Even with total depravity completely ruining every aspect of our character wouldn’t it still be true that there is a part of us that is God-shaped and empty yet was made to worship God? Our depravity leads us in opposite directions of real worship of the real, living God so that we worship things that we think will fill the hole.

Thus, it seems we hunt for stories that reflect the Great Story but never cross into the Real Story unless God moves in our hearts. At the same time, we look for ways to read into stories what we want to read into them becasue of our fallen natures.

Having said that this is great post. Although I’m going to draw fire for saying this, I’ve never liked Superman. Too many God images in the abilities and names. Give me “normal” superheroes like Batman or the Green Hornet.


2. Tim T.
June 29, 2006
11:31 AM

From a review by Megan Basham:

Similarly, rather than sidestepping the Superman/Christ connection, Singer plays it for everything its worth. As Superman tells Lois: “You wrote that the world doesn’t need a savior. But every day I hear people crying for one.” Later, after Lex and his thugs beat Superman down Gesthemane-style, he rises, arms spread in a cross formation to the sun as his Kryptonian father’s voice intones over the air, “It is because of their [the human race] capacity for good that I sent them my only son.”

Now, that’s an interesting twist on John 3:16!


3. Dallas Pymm
June 29, 2006
11:38 AM

I agree Tim. The Christian can see some not so perfect parallels with Christ and Superman. I was waiting to hear something like this post after the trailer for the film said something to the sound of “they are a good people, I am sending you, my one and only son.” But, as you pointed out Tim. We are not a good people, and even Superman does not come close to our Savior. That should be the lesson in the film, not even a man made Superman come close to the power of our one and only savior.

Homosexuals have claimed every super hero I can think of. I walked by a desk at my work with a magazine on it asking if “Mutant is the next gay?”. I guess everyone will read themselves in super heroes.

I agree with Mike. Batman is the best. He’s a real dude who creates great toys and defeats the bad guys with a combo of brains and brawns. Gotta love it. I can’t wait for the next one.


4. Tim Challies
June 29, 2006
11:41 AM

This reminds me of a really, really dumb song by the band Cadet. It was called God-Man:

here’s to him my guardian
there he is
he moves faster than light
his body holds tremendous might
his face doth shine ever so bright
his enemies tremble with fright

Jesus is my superhero
once he died for me
i’m his trusting sidekick
we will beat the enemy

there he is
he labors day and night
somehow i’m always in his sight
without a doubt he’ll do what’s right
with any foe he’ll win the fight

evil’s on its way
but my savior’s here to save my day

I don’t know that the art of song-writing gets a lot worse than that!


5. Andrew
June 29, 2006
11:55 AM

Hmm. I think our church’s children’s director played that song at a kids event at least a few times or one like it.


6. ryan
June 29, 2006
12:26 PM

SPOILER ALERT

The “gay” thing might be hard to maintain after the movie reveals that Superman is a dad.


7. Jim Crigler
June 29, 2006
12:27 PM

I’m gonna go with Mike S on this one: Superman is a Christ figure, purposely using imagery from the Ultimate Story to make an earthly, profit-minded story. Here are a couple more parallels:

  • After lifting the kryptonite-laced landmass into space, Superman falls in a “cross pose” with his cape flapping about him (ala, Shroud of Turin).
  • When he falls, he “descends into Hell”, i.e., under the water. But it’s just an image.

Now some reasons it’s just imagery and not the Gospel:

  • It is revealed in the movie that Superman is … okay, I won’t give you a spoiler, but it’s much more akin to Salt Lake City or Dan Brown than it is to Geneva (or even Rome).
  • The business about humans having great potential for good if they only had a leader/hero/savior which mitigates toward Mormonism or (hold your breath) Methodist. (The latter is more likely, since Clark Kent was raised Methodist in the Midwest. See Religion of Comic Book Characters


8. James
June 29, 2006
12:54 PM

I think this is just another instance of “Entertainment Idolatry.” We have become a society that seeks to be entertained in everything, and in the absence of true entertainment we try to make what’s there what we want it to be. Michael Spencer at Internetmonk wrote this article that really talks about this whole subject.

I don’t know if it is just me or if there are others, but I look at entertainment as just that entertainment. I try to enjoy a movie or book for it’s entertainment value. I don’t sit and analyze some covert innuendo and say “HA look they are trying to tell me something.”

I am not so naive to think there are not moviemakers trying to push their agendas on us, but I think we can either allow ourselves to be drug down into the mire they seek to take us to or we can ignore it.

Is Superman Jesus or Gay? I don’t look at him as either, to me he is a created character and the movie is simple entertainment. Maybe that is a shallow position for me to take, but I think there are lot more things we can focus on as Christians.

Just my 2 cents. :)


9. Jerry Morningstar
June 29, 2006
1:53 PM

I’ve seen a couple of articles in Citizen and World arguing that Hollywood is starting to take notice of the Christian moviegoer. Mainly because of the huge success of ‘The Passion’ - and then Narnia. Is this just a cheap bone thrown out to the Christian to give him a reason to go see the movie? It’s not a difficult argument to make that a super hero who saves people - can be a type of messiah - but if the corresponding theology of man, etc. is off - then it hardly qualifies as a Christian movie. Of course, with Narnia - one might have to explain that the ‘ransom to Satan’ theory of the atonement is not the biblical view either.

I recently bought my son, Jacob [4 years old] the dvd of the old Super friends cartoon series I grew up on. One thing I do like about the series is the clear distinction between the good guys and the bad guys. [Superman and Bizarro, etc.] In our relativist - post modern culture - we don’t like to call anything or anyone evil or bad.


10. Dallas Pymm
June 29, 2006
2:16 PM

“one might have to explain that the ‘ransom to Satan’ theory of the atonement is not the biblical view either.”

Jerry,

This is true, that the ‘ransom to Satan’ theory is not Biblical, but how did Narnia do this? I thought that the law was broken and demanded payment, the Lion (Christ-like figure) provided himself as the ransom. I did not see it as ransom to Satan, even though the witch dealt the death blow. I saw it as fulfilling the law. Did I miss something?


11. Rob
June 29, 2006
2:36 PM

Maybe this is too naive, but why not just enjoy the movie? Are we so lost in relativism that we can no longer enjoy a simple flick without constantly polling everyone with: What did it mean to you?

In the end, maybe it’s just an $8.00 ticket, bag of popcorn, fun with the kids movie? Or, at least, that’s what it means to me!

Rob


12. donsands
June 29, 2006
2:54 PM

Good thoughts Tim. Your conclusion was excellent.
“Superman cannot be Jesus, .. to your unbelieving friend or neighbor”.

The gospel is hid to those who are lost, and Satan has blinded their minds on top of that.
But if someone brings a different Jesus, or a different gospel, this they will bear with, and even receive joyfully. 2 Corinthians.


13. s. zeilenga
June 29, 2006
3:43 PM


You mean there is a Superman movie out? Oh.

Ok, I am kidding of course (my roommate saw it last night), but I could never get into the superhero movies at all. I mean, sheesh, who wants to see a man in tights and a cape try to save the world?

But that is just my take. I find reality a whole lot more interesting and fantastic than any movie anyway. Superman might be “playing” a Christ-figure of sorts, but the real story is far more appealing to me.

z.


14. joythruchrist
June 29, 2006
4:23 PM

“I find reality a whole lot more interesting and fantastic than any movie anyway. Superman might be “playing” a Christ-figure of sorts, but the real story is far more appealing to me.”

I’m with you, z. And the whole tights and cape thing kind of grosses me out!


15. Jo
June 29, 2006
5:11 PM

My family loves the dvds from the series that ran on t.v. in the mid 90’s called “Lois and Clark the new adventures of Superman” that starred Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher. It ran for 4 years and last week season 3 was finally released on Amazon. Dh and I watched it when it was on t.v. and I was thrilled to find it on dvd. It’s a great show-the chemistry between Lois and Clark is perfect and the language is clean. There are a few references of a sexual nature now and then but they go over the kids heads. They love the show too. It’s somewhat corny but it’s the chemistry and cleanness of the show that is appealing-not necessarily the silly storylines. Since we prefer “our” Superman that we own we aren’t planning to see the movie.
By the way, I agree with the poster above who said why not just enjoy the movie instead of trying to christianize or de-christianize it? If you decide to go see it just enjoy it for what it is!


16. Jerry Morningstar
June 29, 2006
5:14 PM

Dallas - don’t get me wrong - I loved Narnia - the books and the movie. I can’t wait for the next movie to be made on it. I doubt Lewis ever intended that one should find exact parallels to every part of the gospel in his story. [Why have a talking beaver and Father Christmas?] There are elements to the biblical atonement that are difficult for us to grasp - let alone portray in a movie. In Narnia - Aslan obviously represents Jesus - but the Father is absent. Aslan appears to have worked out a deal with the witch that will secure Edmund’s release. But the witch didn’t quite understand the deeper magic. I think that is classic ‘Ransom to Satan’. God duped Satan into killing His Son - but Satan didn’t realize it would mean his undoing. Obviously there are some biblical elements of truth there. That’s why the ‘ransom to Satan’ theory was ever put forth - [I believe by Origen].

The penal substitutionary view of the atonement - is that Christ died to satisfy the wrath of God we deserve for our sins. Even the satisfaction of the law falls underneath this truth as God is not subject to the law - but put it into place. i.e. Christ died to satisfy not just ‘the law’ - but God’s law.

Perhaps it comes down to - what was our biggest problem? That we were held captive by Satan - or that we were under the wrath of God? Both are true and taken care of in the biblical atonement. But Protestant orthodoxy has typically put the primary emphasis upon God’s wrath being satisfied.

Satan doesn’t drag us down to hell - it is God’s wrath that puts us there. In Narnia the emphasis is all on the witch [Satan].
But the basic idea of Christ dying for man is there - and wonderfully portrayed - along with the resurrection of Christ. I enjoyed reading the whole series to my daughter. I love the illustration of Turkish delight being like sin - ever so tasty but unsatisfying.


17. Kenny Archbold
June 29, 2006
6:20 PM

If you are a member of the Episcopal Church USA the answer is BOTH!


18. Jonathan Williams
June 29, 2006
7:19 PM

It looks like people are also comparing Superman to the Democratic Party and “unpatriotic” Americans. They also are claiming the Daily Planet is a “liberal” paper like the New York Times. People need to just shut-up and enjoy the movie.


19. Dallas Pymm
June 29, 2006
7:24 PM

Thanks Jerry. I was actually asking because I never read the books and I only saw the movie once when I was very tired. I thought I had missed something, and I probably did. The movie was ok. It was no Lord of the Rings.

I would say a sinner’s biggest problem is the wrath of our Holy God. Our captivity to Satan and our fallen nature make it our biggest problem.

And PLEASE! SUPERMAN IS TOTALLY CONSERVATIVE. THE ONLY REASON HE WEARS TIGHTS IS TO DISTRACT HIS ENEMIES. DUH. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT! :O)


20. shannon
June 29, 2006
7:35 PM

Jerry’s statement:
…but if the corresponding theology of man, etc. is off - then it hardly qualifies as a Christian movie. Of course, with Narnia - one might have to explain that the ‘ransom to Satan’ theory of the atonement is not the biblical view either.


This is a peculiar statement and is given an incomplete answer by Dallas, not that I intend to do a better job, but I do believe that an understanding of stories we ingest is done so through a channel that includes the factors we have been influenced by (being the whole of life, the Spirit, or lack of that relationship).
The first part of this statement should have tempered Dallas’ answer, but instead, no commenters took it into consideration. What does this mean exactly:

…but if the corresponding theology of man, etc. is off - then it hardly qualifies as a Christian movie…?

The ‘theology’ of the men in the Bible is the same as the men of today, and the story of any person who did anything in the Bible is that of a sinner, except for One. The question now pertains to the definition of Christian.
How can we refer to anything as Christian? And why would we even begin to muse over something so futile? How can we look at any story but those from Scripture as complete truth—and even the Word would not be complete truth if it/He were not in its/His entirety?
The thing that is required of the Body is to love. The Word tempers our intake of stories.
Movies, songs, books, and any other form of entertainment are not only for entertainment’s sake: they do influence.
While they do influence and inspire, they do not do so of their own accord, nor do they contain all knowledge.
We do have all knowledge (1 John 3) and therefore are required to accountability and humility in our perception of the world and our family.
If we took time to do so, then maybe we would see that the second part of this statement (which has brought about so much discussion here) is a shadow of that which is in the imperfect mirror we are looking into: it appears to us in the film/book that the enemy receives his ransom (the reference to “ransom to Satan” reveals that we believed it too), but (!) just as the enemy was deceived—so were we.


21. Dallas Pymm
June 29, 2006
8:05 PM

“How can we look at any story but those from Scripture as complete truth—and even the Word would not be complete truth if it/He were not in its/His entirety?”

Great point(s) Shannon. I would truly be worried if anyone held any story not from the Bible with such a high opinion as having complete truth.

I was not concerned with the assumption that Narnia is or is not a Christian movie. I simply wanted to discuss why the atonement in the movie was considered a ransom to the enemy. I had heard this a couple of times and just recently saw the film and did not catch that, but like I said, I was very tired and had no prior knowledge of anything about the film or books.

“How can we refer to anything as Christian?”

Regarding this point. I think for anything to be called “Christian”, movies, songs, etc., it should be authored by a Christian, with a gospel centered message, and written for the purposes of glorifying God. This is not complete, but it will do for now. This does not mean it will be perfect. Look at us who call ourselves Christian. We are not perfect. Should we stop calling ourselves Christian? I know there is a flaw in thinking this way because Christians are made by Christ, and works or Christians are made by people, but I think the label serves a good purpose to help know what can be edifying and what is not. Get my drift?


22. Brian Thornton
June 29, 2006
9:09 PM

The question now pertains to the definition of Christian.
How can we refer to anything as Christian? And why would we even begin to muse over something so futile?

Good questions, shannon.

Is there really anything such as a ‘Christian’ movie? Superman is definitely not it…Narnia, on the surface, appears closer to one…The Passion, in what it is portraying, is actually closer to being a ‘Christian’ movie than even Narnia…yet it is so far removed from the true Christ because of all its Catholic tradition and deviation from holy writ.

If you want to find Christ…the TRUE Christ…go to Scripture. Why do we work so hard and search far and wide for validation from the secular culture such as within a movie about a comic book super-hero?

I would put forth that NO movie is 100% Christian…not even my beloved Gospel of John film that I enjoy watching so much (now, it is about as close as you’ll ever get, because it is word-for-word from John’s gospel - Good News Version). And, if something is not 100%, then is it really any at all?

There is one story line and script, though, that IS 100% true and accurate and ‘Christian’…the Word of God. So go watch movies like Superman if you enjoy them…but don’t feel like you have to justify it by saying there exists all these parallels of truth and of Christ…for there is no such thing outside of Scripture.

And if you think there is, then you are fooling yourself.


23. donsands
June 29, 2006
9:23 PM

When I saw Superman 2, when back when, I was an unregenerate person. I really enjoyed it. I simply enjoyed it.
When I watch it now, I enjoy it. But I do pick up on when they use the Lord’s name in vain. Whereas before I was saved I never noticed, because it was part of my vocabulary as well, of which I am still ashamed of.
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love!”


24. Jerry Morningstar
June 29, 2006
9:33 PM

Shannon - I wouldn’t read too much into my ‘Christian movie’ comment. I was using that in the context of the blog. Is Superman a Christ figure? i.e. - Can Christians find something that points to spiritual truth in the movie?

I’m not generally in the habit of labeling movies Christian or non- Christian. That’s just a shorthand way of saying: is their something of an edification value in this movie [say perhaps for my children]? Is there something in it of a truth teaching nature? If there is - is there also some error that you may or may not want to point out as well?

I realize that for some people - to muse over such things might seem futile - but I personally find it interesting to examine the theology that is being presented to either myself or others - and ask whether i think it is right or not [biblical or not]. Not for the sake of condemning the artist - but out of love for the truth.


25. shannon
June 29, 2006
9:57 PM

I did not intend to express that I believe evaluating art or literature and other such forms is futile and without value, but I believe that it is as important to teach your children to value the discipline as well.
I appreciated this article but I also find it tedious to raise questions like this. I feel like this would have to be a relevant question to discuss with our children in order to avoid feeling annoyed by it.
I saw the infinitely quoted C.S. Lewis cited as saying something to the effect of: if you couldn’t fit the entirety of your beliefs and vernacular into a matter of minutes, then it was of little value.
I want to value the simplicity of truth and believe that if I were to have children, my aim should not be to discuss who in the story looks like Christ, because in doing so I would most likely—inadvertant, as the points I would make in such a discussion—express that Christ is like this person in the story, thus comparing these for my child and somehow leading them to believe that the Creator could be contained in stories other than the Word.
I think that because of the conventions of society and the flaws of humanity would connote for the child the idea that entertainment should be for entertainment’s sake. Maybe drawing this distinction does more harm than good.
If we pray for wisdom, clarity, and purity then maybe we would spend less time teaching our children how to look at the world in ways that will need to be undone in the future, and seek to pray and live informed, cleansed and purified lives that can only be accomplished by the Spirit, dependence upon Him that would reveal part of the truth of the Gospel.
Abiding in the Gospel will guard a person from putting too much weight upon things outside of God. While we fail, pursuing the Truth as outlined in the Word of God would do more to reveal the Lord than saying, “So, what do you think this tells us about God?”
I think that the danger in discussing things this way is that we look at entertainment as a compromise: Oh, well if we can get something out of it then it’s okay to watch/do/indulge/enjoy.
Christ did not live that way.


26. shannon
June 29, 2006
10:00 PM

[side note]
I do believe the nature of God can be seen in things other than the Bible.


27. Caleb
June 29, 2006
10:33 PM

If we find it hard to tell the Gospel story straight up, we don’t need to go looking to the world of entertainment as some sort of aid. Jesus used many different analogies and illustrations to say, ‘the kingdom of heaven is LIKE this’, and ‘the Father is LIKE this…’

Why go to a work of pure fiction with a redemptive message amounting to ‘the world needs a crime-fighting hero to save us from the bad dudes’, when the Bible tells us, ‘all have sinned’?

Art, entertainment and popular culture have reduced Jesus’ selfless sacrifice to nothing more than stoic heroism, and his suffering to some form of widespread criticism. Hence, pop stars singing, “I know how Jesus felt,” when they get criticised.


28. Tom M
June 30, 2006
8:27 AM

It makes me want to vomit when people are using the lastest movie as a stepping stone to share the Gospel. It is the power of the Word that causes the Spirit to change them, not the power of LOTRs, Superman, of even the feeble attempt to use the new age-based Star Wars as a stepping stone for the Gospel. Do not get me wrong, I enjoy LOTR and Star Wars, but I certainly don;t use them to make parellels in the Gospel. For a Christian, it can be an interesting acedemic exercise that there are indeed TRUE similarities in LOTRs and Narnia since the authors are in fact devoted Christians, but let us heed a twist to the notice at the end of most films…it would read this:

“The religous views and interpretations in this film are FALSE. Any resemblance to the TRUTH is purely coincidental, and possibly a figment of your imagination.”

A Godless writer and director does not have a corner on Gospel truth, though he might make some good social-virtue comments.


29. pilgrim
June 30, 2006
1:47 PM

Jor-El is more a deisitic god.
He sets soemthing in motion (Kal-el/Superman)
Then he vanishes. No more to be involved.

SO where are the Deists claimimg SUperman’s mythos parallels their beliefs?

In the movie Jor-El says he sent his son to earth becasue of humanity’s capacity for good.

We know our capacity for good is not why God sent Jesus—but our capcity for evil means we need Jesus.


30. John
June 30, 2006
9:03 PM

Well, Tim, I’m sorry to be disagreeing with you again, but I think you’ve missed it a bit on Superman. Having seen the movie I can tell you that it is indeed a nice recapitulation of the Gospel in many details. But what I guess I really don’t understand is your view of Jesus appeal to unbelievers.

What is there in an unbeliever that will make him respond favorably, on a spiritual level, to a Christ figure? According to the Bible, nothing.

Nothing?

Mt. 4:25 Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.

Mt. 8:1 When he came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him.

Mt. 9:36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.

Mt. 15:30 Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them.

Mt. 19:2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

Luke 9:11 the crowds learned about it and followed him. He welcomed them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God…

It seems there is something that attracts unbelievers to the real Jesus, even when they aren’t filled with the spirit. And if so, it’s not hard to imagine that a “type” or image of Christ would also appeal to many people, though they may not know why exactly. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that many of the biggest films of the last two years — The Passion, Narnia, Spiderman 2 — have all contained pretty overt crucifiction scenes. Superman Returns is only the latest example to ground its story in the greatest story.

On the whole I think God seems quite fond of stories. Given that he came at a time before handycams and YouTube, he seems to have trusted his entire mission on earth to their being told and retold. In any case, there has to be some reason God chose to reveal himself in a narrative rather than through a systematic theology text.


31. Brian Thornton
June 30, 2006
11:18 PM

there has to be some reason God chose to reveal himself in a narrative rather than through a systematic theology text.

John,
What you need to understand is that the narrative you speak of in which God reveals Himself (the Bible), IS a systematic theology text.

From beginning to end it is a systematic narrative of ONE thing…God’s plan, promise, and finished work of the redemption of His people.


32. debtor2grace
July 1, 2006
1:19 AM

>>>Maybe this is too naive, but why not just enjoy the movie? Are we so lost in relativism that we can no longer enjoy a simple flick without constantly polling everyone with: What did it mean to you?

In the end, maybe it’s just an $8.00 ticket, bag of popcorn, fun with the kids movie? Or, at least, that’s what it means to me!


33. debtor2grace
July 1, 2006
1:20 AM

>>>What you need to understand is that the narrative you speak of in which God reveals Himself (the Bible), IS a systematic theology text.

From beginning to end it is a systematic narrative of ONE thing…God’s plan, promise, and finished work of the redemption of His people.


34. P.D. Nelson
July 1, 2006
2:35 PM

And this is why I prefer Batman, because for all of his misanthropic views he’ll never be mistaken for a “Christ” figure.


35. Jerry Morningstar
July 1, 2006
8:15 PM

If anyone is still tracking this - after seeing the movie today [my wife is out of town!] I have a few more futile musings [just kidding]. I thought it was a good movie and could definitely see some gospel allusions. With language like - ‘Does the world need a Savior?’ - it’s pretty hard not to see some religious element. Much more plausible than the gay thing. My buddy who went with me said - maybe this movie is a good mixture of the Bible and the Davinci code - since Superman has baby.

Why analyze movies for their theological content - rather than just enjoy it?

Here’s my reason -

Deut. 6:6 - ‘And these words which i am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and rise up.’

I enjoy combining a love of Scripture with whatever else I am enjoying.

I think Deuteronomy gives us the principle that the Word of God is not to be compartmentalized out of our ordinary life activities

Jesus was a master at this - He could look at the birds of the air or the flowers of the field and draw out a spiritual truth for His disciples

all of life pertains to God - because it’s His universe

I Cor. 10:31 - - Whatever you do - do to the glory of God

How can you watch a movie to the glory of God?

I’m sure others may have some other ideas - but I find one way is to look at the truth content - that enhances my enjoyment

Blessings,


36. Brian Thornton
July 1, 2006
9:53 PM

Jerry,
Some thoughts about your comments:

“I think Deuteronomy gives us the principle that the Word of God is not to be compartmentalized out of our ordinary life activities”

The ‘words’ which Moses was giving to Israel were the very words of God. It was these very words of God that were to be taught diligently and discussed thoroughly. How does that translate over to finding theological content in a secular movie?

“Jesus was a master at this - He could look at the birds of the air or the flowers of the field and draw out a spiritual truth for His disciples”

That’s because He is the Creator of those birds, and air and flowers…not because He was humanly skilled enough to pull some spiritual truth out of the secular world around Him. Those birds and air and flowers were created - by Him - for His own glory.

“I’m sure others may have some other ideas - but I find one way is to look at the truth content - that enhances my enjoyment”

What content of truth is actually found in the Superman movie? I am genuinely interested in this because all I’ve heard so far is about some apparent parallels to Christ. I haven’t seen the film yet, but so far all I’ve heard are untruths (human race being potentially good, etc.). Can you or anyone else point to some real truth contained in the movie?


37. Jerry Morningstar
July 1, 2006
11:02 PM

Bryan - I think you may be missing my point from the Deuteronomy passage. I think the passage supports the idea that there is no truly secular arena in this world.

Some have suggested - ‘why not just go to a movie and enjoy it, without asking theological questions, etc.?’ I think that’s a valid point - but I also think that if we are able to make ties from our everyday world [going to a movie] - to a spiritual truth - I think that is beneficial. How else do you talk about the word of God - while walking along the way, etc? Certainly we can quote words of Scripture and ignore reality around us - but I think the passage implies an interaction with our everyday lives. If we decide that seeing a movie is a valid use of our time - should we assume there can be no real spiritual good to come out of it?

Is there a way to watch a movie to the glory of God?
Or do you believe all tv , movies are a waste of time?

I went to the movie - basically because I thought it sounded like a good movie and a good diversion

Spurgeon once said to pastors that the bow string needs to be loosened once in a while - I agree that the believer needs healthy r& r to keep himself sharp.

I think if we are to truly understand the Scripture we have to be able to look around at our world and apply it to the birds of the air and the flowers of the field.

In preaching - that is called application or relevancy

Just as God takes care of the birds - so He will take care of us

The Bible says nothing about clocks - but I can make a spiritual lesson from a clock

It keeps moving - time is running out - make the most of our lives while we have time, etc.

We can’t act as though Jesus is the only one who can make spiritual application from life in this world - we follow His example

An interesting theme in the movie was - ‘Do we need a Superman?’ the Question at times was phrased as, ‘do we need a Savior?’ The movie seemed to end with an affirmative answer. Could someone get the gospel out of the movie? Absolutely not. We need more than someone to save us when our car is out of control or buildings are falling on us - but we do need a Savior.

thanks for your thoughts


38. Brian Thornton
July 1, 2006
11:59 PM

I think if we are to truly understand the Scripture we have to be able to look around at our world and apply it to the birds of the air and the flowers of the field.

In preaching - that is called application or relevancy

Jerry,

First, I don’t believe a movie equates to the world around us.

Second, much of good expository preaching today can be completely submarined by a follow-up of too much of what you are calling application, or relevancy. The White Horse Inn broadcast of May 28th did an excellent examination of this very thing.

Surely the Word of God can stand on its own without having to be made relevant or applicable. Let the imperatives and indicatives in Scripture speak for themsleves…don’t ruin them with too much man-made application and man-made relevancy.


39. Dallas Pymm
July 2, 2006
1:17 AM

“Surely the Word of God can stand on its own without having to be made relevant or applicable. Let the imperatives and indicatives in Scripture speak for themsleves…don’t ruin them with too much man-made application and man-made relevancy.”

I certainly don’t think anyone posting here is in danger of doing the above.

I saw the movie today. It was good. I saw the similarities. Why? Only because I know my need for my savior. Without knowledge of Christ no one can come away with any sort of Biblical truth from it. Why? They have no knowledge of Christ, and the obvious fact it is not the Bible. There is no reason why a Christian can’t watch this film for pleasure and come away thanking God for the fact that he provided a savior for His people.

To answer Brian’s question. No, you can’t find truth in the movie. All you can do is be reminded of the actual truth that our need for a savior runs deeper than this world truly knows. It was worth seeing just for that reminder that I need daily. I see no harm in that.


40. Jerry Morningstar
July 2, 2006
8:55 AM

Brian - how do you watch a movie to the glory of God?


41. Brian Thornton
July 2, 2006
2:47 PM

Brian - how do you watch a movie to the glory of God?

First and foremost, I make every effort to continually crucify my flesh (Gal. 5:24) by not subjecting myself to movies that would lead me into further temptation than I already deal with on a daily basis in the normal course of life. My struggle against the flesh is tough enough without consciously adding to it and bringing DIS-honor to God through what I allow into this temple through my eyes and ears, in this case… in the form of movies.

Secondly, by making the right decisions concerning what movies to watch and NOT watch, I am protecting my witness and setting an example before my wife, my children, my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and the world around me.

I believe these two things can bring glory to God through the movies I watch…and DON’T watch. I do NOT believe that I have to sit through a movie and pick out all the apparent parallels to Christ or perceived indications of Scriptural truths in order to glorify God.

Can that be done? Sure, I think it is possible to do that. However, I don’t think it is done primarily to bring glory to the Creator, but rather to justify one’s actions (the watching of something that shouldn’t be watched) or to validate one’s Chrisitanity before a God-dishonoring and God-hating secular culture. There is no uplifting of Christ…the TRUE Christ…in some perceived parallel-types within a secular movie. ANYTHING that is not 100% truth is a lie….I don’t care how much truth it contains. This is why we have to be extra careful even about movies like Narnia, though…while good for topics of discussion, still attributes to an animal the qualitites and nature of Christ, the Lord. While Narnia, for example, can be used to highlight particualr points…it is NOT the gospel.

Picking out perceived Scriptural truths or Christ-like images within a movie like Superman doesn’t make it any MORE spiritual…or any LESS secular. I believe we run the risk of muddying the gospel even more when we try to do this…

Why not rather point people to the true gospel contained within Scripture than trying to pull the gospel out of a secular movie???


42. Jerry Morningstar
July 2, 2006
5:09 PM

Thanks for the discussion - I’ll try not to be such a pagan.


43. Brett
July 3, 2006
1:13 PM

Maybe we could call it the Comic Book Gospel. The problem is you can take parts of the movie and make a case for about any agenda. Is Superman a Christ figure? Is Superman Methodist? Is Superman gay? Is Superman a Democrat? Is he a Rebuplican? Is he for the War in Iraq? Is he against the War in Iraq? Someone said shut up and enjoy the movie. I agree.

One final thought: Superman can’t atone for our sins.


44. Brian Thornton
July 3, 2006
4:54 PM

Amen, Brett!


45. Randy Brandt
July 3, 2006
8:24 PM

Even with total depravity completely ruining every aspect of our character

Mike, that’s a common misunderstanding. Total depravity is soteriological (having to do with the study of salvation). If it truly affected every aspect of our character, every nonbeliever would belong in maximum security prison at best. What it does mean is that we are utterly unable to save ourselves.

it seems we hunt for stories that reflect the Great Story but never cross into the Real Story unless God moves in our hearts.

I totally agree with that, and believe that Lord of The Rings, Batman, Superman, etc., appeal to the masses for that reason.