• Zoolander: Man of Substance?
• Knocked Up
• Ratatouille: Pixar for Grownups
• Borat: Obnoxiously Visceral, Mildly Satirical
• Ferris Bueller's Day Off: The Most Ideologically Important Film Ever Made
• Pulp Fiction: Top of the Second Tier

In a post Christian society, where the incessant anti-Christian propaganda is becoming reminiscent of the Jewish experience in pre-war Germany, it's really kind of pathetic that so many Christian reviewers grovel before a bitter ambitious loser like Brian Dannelly.

Do you suppose that he did "Saved" because of his heartfelt need to instruct Christians in their flaws? No, it was because it was exactly this type of movie which would get his movie career launched through the left wing anti-Christian film establishment.

The best lies always have a grain of truth in them, and with this movie, Dannelly is a liar and the father of it. Perhaps you should consider how many miserable secularists will never know the real peace of Christian thought, due to being sermonized by drivel such as this. I submit that
your mission is to help cut through the lie of
the secularist media to help others reach the Truth, not to bow down before the Dannelly's of this world.

I don't really think my response to this film is grovelling, though it's a great image. I recognize that Mr. Dannelly's critique is not even trying to be charitable, but that is neither my business nor my concern. And by that I mean that I can't evaluate, short of discussing it with him, what his real intentions are in this film. It is furthermore not my concern because, inasmuch as he shows me what is true, I need to respond to that truth.

My response is what you read in the essay.

I accept your submission, that I "help cut through the lie of the secularist media to help others reach the Truth," but I don't accept that I've bowed to Dannelly. Conviction comes from God, not from secular film. God used the film for that conviction, in this case.

Great response, Rebecca! I just have one more thing to add. K's statement that "incessant anti-Christian propaganda is becoming reminiscent of the Jewish experience in pre-war Germany" is both empirically wrong and ideologically obtuse. Christians, particularly Evangelicals, are a very powerful social and political force in the contemporary United States. To claim that the lot of 21st Century American Christians is equivalent to that of European Jews at the beginning of Nazi rule is, at best, tasteless, and at worst, morally repugnant.

Rather than trying to "transform society" through top-down, institutionalized methods like elections, boycotts, and picking fights in that ultimately pointless and narcissistic phenomenon known as the "Culture Wars," we Christians should focus instead on spreading the Gospel, building strong faith communities, and reforming our own lives. Getting all worked up about the "media," the Hollywood "establishment," or, specifically, Brian Dannelly is not only counterproductive, but potentially a worldly waste of time.

Response to Rebecca S:I submit that Jesus's disciples accepted criticism from him, but not from his enemies. The invocation is to turn your cheek, not study their taunts for ways to be a better Christian. This movie was produced to show Christians in a bad light, that was the reason it was made. It also has a lot of false premises built into the story which are easy to escape your conscious attention. By attempting to use it as a sort of moral lession, you are not only accepting perhaps the things which might be valid, but also the things which are a lie.

Response to Kevin: I stand by my statement. There are vastly more avenues to slam Christians in this society than there were to slam Jews in pre war Germany. The only thing that's keeping Christians from being eventually legislated into second class citizenship is the fact that they are a much larger percentage of the population than the Jews were. If the "culture wars" continue (is it a war if only one side is fighting?) the above demographic fact may well be erased.

You can't spread the Gospel if everyone you talk to is a big fan of Brian Dannelly. You can't build a strong faith based community that is also plugged in to a radical secularist media designed to attack your faith. And it's tough to reform your life by taking lessions from those influenced by Hugh Hefner and Norman Mailer.

So what you say is true, but incomplete. I'd agree with your second paragraph, if you add that you can't do all those things and still be plugged into the mainstream media. And since this is a website which seems dedicated to the mainstream media, I kind of wonder if you really
would agree to that.

Response to K: Thank you for the dialogue, K, and for your honesty. I appreciate your concern that we are "dedicated to the mainstream media," but I think rather we are dedicated to discerning Christ and his wisdom (or lack thereof) in the mainstream media. I will say again that I was not convicted by Brian Donnally, but that his film was a medium through which Christ convicted me of the sometimes alienating ways in which we Christians represent Christ. The Holy Spirit uses myriad media in which to speak to us; film is one of them, and it is effective, regardless of the assumed intentions of the filmmakers.

I agree with Kevin. Although there are many voices that criticize Christianity in America today, Christians nonetheless stand in a position of great social and political power. We would do well to recognize that Jesus Christ himself rejected all social and political power offered him. Moreoever we might be wise to remember that any and all persecution we might suffer (and if we are being truly obedient to Christ we can expect to suffer much more) should be received with humility and joy, not anger.

K: Sure, there are plenty of individuals and organizations opposed to Christians and/or Christian teachings. However, you note yourself that American Christians today "are a much larger percentage of the population than the Jews were." Since we live in a country that is governed, at least partly, by majority rule, then the large number of Christians acts as a bulwark against--to press your historical comparison further--state-sanctioned genocide of the faithful. It is precisely because Christians make up such a large percentage of the U.S. population that any comparison with European Jews of the early Twentieth Century is simply wrong. Besides, since our current President is a professed Christian with strong support among Evangelicals, it is nonsensical to argue that American Christians are an oppressed group. To witness serious oppression of Christians, visit Sudan.

When you ask "is it a [culture] war if only one side is fighting," I assume that you're implying that the Culture War is solely a secular attack against cowering, defenseless Christians. However, that, too, is a false claim. What about the well-organized, vocal, and politically connected Christian Right, which is very active in the social and political fray? The (annoying and tiring) Culture War is fought by the Left and the Right, by secularists and fundamentalists. Anyone who hasn't noticed the spars of Pat Robertson, Focus on the Family, the Southern Baptist Convention, etc. in our current cultural milieu has not been paying attention.

When you say that "You can't spread the Gospel if everyone you talk to is a big fan of Brian Dannelly," I assume that you mean one cannot preach the Good News in an immoral culture. That, too, is false. Was the Roman Empire of Jesus' day a bastion of moral living? Did Paul always experience easy encounters with righteous church-goers in spiritually edifying cultures? Far from it. When we read the New Testament, we see believers living in the midst of an immorality and brutality that probably would shock most of us. Yet, the Church survived and thrived. The Gospel can be shared anywhere the Holy Spirit deems fit.

Finally, from the rest of your comment, it seems that what you're really advocating is Christian separatism. (You specifically decry Christians "plugging in" to the mainstream media, but there is no reason why we can't more broadly criticize Christians who are plugged into academia, law, politics, science -- essentially, the modern world as we know it.) I actually have a great deal of respect for separatists, though I do not believe that all Christians are called to follow that route (which is why I spend part of my time writing reviews for cinekklesia). However, K, I must ask: If you're such a fan of separatism, then how do you know about Saved!? How are you familiar with Brian Dannelly? Aren't you a little too plugged in?

I'm afraid I don't share your sanguine attitude about the health of Christianity in this country.
The culture I grew up in was predominantly Christian because Christians were demographically dominant. Obviously, 35 years later that is absolutely not the case. So taking comfort from having a large number of Christians still around is like observing that whereas the Titanic is pointed towards the bottom, a good percentage of it still remains above water.

Also, to point out an obvious fact. This isn't the Roman empire. Christianity isn't the new "trendy" oppressed religion, it's the old establishment one. Not to mention that the "media" then was somewhat less sophisticated.
People didn't sit watching hypnotic scrolls for 5 hours a day.

On a more personal level, I have known several people on whom I spent a great amount of time and effort to repeatedly help out of dire dysfunctional life situations. The ultimate answer for these people was accepting Christ into their lives, but they were hard core secularists, or "bought the programming" so to speak. One's response to me was "I'd rather be right, than happy." These people were well aquainted with the "Christians as idiots, fools, hypocrites, dishonest, sexually perverse, murdering, violent, insane et al stereotypes routinely presented in the movies and television and it formed a part of their secular religious convictions, thereby making them near impossible to reach.

I oppose in my small way the anti-Christian media because if I were in the position of accepting a life warping cultural lie, I would want people to stand up and fight for balance, so I could have at least a chance to see the Truth. Notice this doesn't have anything to do with "great social or political power", it's the Golden Rule.

I am not a separatist, per se, except in terms of "being a law unto yourself" and separating myself mentally from what are obvious and not so obvious lies and misrepresentations. If you had seen the way the culture has changed over the last 40 years as I have, seen God systematically removed from it and the tragic cultural and societal effects of such, I think you would be a little more concerned about it as well.

I'm sure you've heard, "If you're so smart, why
aren't you rich?". For the purposes of this discussion, I would say, "If the religious right is so powerful, why doesn't the culture reflect it?".

When considering questions of power and influence, it's probably useful to make a distinction between political power and cultural influence. I agree with most of what everyone above has said.

The "conservative" element holds more sway right now in American government than the "liberal." Policy decisions and allocation of monies reflect this.

However, the media, the arts, and higher education seem to be predominantly liberal. Artifacts like Gibson's _The Passion_ and web sites like _Libertas_ are definitely the exception.

So--to oversimplify dramatically--the question becomes a matter of relative power. Which do you think is really more influential in shaping American mores? The federal government and today's growing churches, or education and the Arts?

[disclaimer: I haven't seen Saved yet ... it just arrived in the mail from Netflix]

Great discussion. There are some important issues being raised and discussed (and no one's started shouting yet ... good news for an online discussion).

I'd like to chime in and focus on one of the questions Rebecca raises in her initial review. To paraphrase: Is it possible to have a relationship with God without alienating other people. In other words ... must we seem so "freakish" to "normal" people?

I suggest that the answer is a firm "Yes and No". I think Petra said it best when they sang "We are strangers, we are aliens.
We are not of this world." A committed relationship with God means that we are going to be doing some things differently than everyone else. We will try putting the needs of others before our own. We will try acting in a way that pleases an all-loving, all-knowing, ever-present yet invisible Being. We will make mistakes along the way, but we will keep on keepin' on.

In some ways, however, we do some "alien" things that unnecessarily alienate the very people that we are trying to serve and love. We wear funny t-shirts. We try reducing complex theological principles to something that fits on a bumper sticker. We hit people over the head (at least figuratively) with Bibles. And we justify all of our weirdness by saying "Of course the secular world is critical of us ... we're supposed to be persecuted."

In my opinion we should frequently reflect on what our critics have to say and be open to the possibility that they are right in some areas and that we need to make a few changes so we can be alien without being alienating.

Thank you, Ben, for an important clarification here. I would like to add that, perhaps sadly, Dannelly's film can't be considered persecution. He is railing against hypocrisy here, and until Christians are innocent of hypocrisy, his criticism stands. When indeed we are persecuted, our suffering will come from Christlikeness in all its permutations, for genuine "alienness," not just being different or even weird.

I would also like to add a latent response to K, with continued gratitude for her comments and openness and my apologies for not noting this earlier. You comment "By attempting to use it (the film) as a sort of moral lesson, you are not only accepting perhaps the things which might be valid, but also the things which are a lie." While I would agree that line, hook, and sinker responses are common errors, I believe that my response does not represent such. We are responsible as Christians to separate wheat and chaff, discerning lies from truth. There is much in Dannelly's film that is exaggeration and therefore untrue, but I think there is also much to be learned from it.

Paul demonstrates yet again why he's called to a life of teaching. His question regarding the relative weight that Church, State, Education, and the Arts hold in influencing culture is completely apropos; unfortunately, it's also an empirical enquiry and since I have no data, I cannot answer it successfully.

In regards to K's comment that "35 years later [Christians' demographic dominance] is absolutely not the case," I would have to disagree. As far as I know, the number of Americans who state that Christianity is their faith dominates the numbers who profess other faiths or no faith at all. Yes, one can argue that many of these folks label themselves "Christians" for mere cultural reasons, but I hypothesize that the same trend would have been evident four decades ago.

While it is clear that K is older than I am (I'm 30), and while I respect her personal observations about changes in American culture, I suggest that we be careful in bemoaning our current lot. Again, whether the U.S. is less moral today than 40 years ago is a tricky empirical question; that may be true, but I've also heard that social indicators such as rates of crime and teen pregnancy actually have been declining lately. In other words, we may be better off than social conservatives claim.

More broadly, I find it helpful to look beyond the past 40 years and into the past, say, one or two millenia. If "the 'media' [at the time of the Roman Empire] was somewhat less sophisticated," as K correctly says, and if the empire was nevertheless highly immoral, then clearly, one cannot say that mass media is the source of all evil. Media itself is neutral; it is the people who use it for good or bad ends. Because people are sinful, some (I even would argue most) media products deserve the label of "trash."

Yet, as Ben and Rebecca note, there are diamonds in the rough. The world is a rotten place, but it is still God's creation and His Spirit still speaks. As such, we must discern what is wheat and what is chaff; while a lot of media products unfairly caricature Christians, we also should not ignore the legitimate critiques. After all, if I do something wrong and a non-Christian calls me on it, should a fellow Christian deny my wrongdoing just because I'm a believer? Shouldn't my brother or sister also hold me accountable?

About culture and political power. The problem with politics is that it's all about labels and labels are defined by whomever owns the culture. The "Conservatives" who are in power, often called "neo cons" were yesterday's centrist Jackson Democrats, who don't believe for one minute in smaller, less activist government or fiscal responsibilty, and are therefore no conservatives. So people who would be considered centrists 10 years ago have been dubbed neo-cons and garden variety religious conservatives are now often refered to as extremists. These labels came from the left, who dominates the lines of communication, and it's a potent form of political power.

Which brings us to the religious right. Much is made of their power, mainly in the MSM. It's a standard tactic by both right and left to make a boogie man out of your rivals. But the cost of something is what people actually pay for it and the power of a group is what they actually accomplish. Is abortion illegal? Can you have a Christmas display in the town center if a single lawyer objects to it? Did John Dean lose his job because of his comments about white Christians? Is there a "Christian history awareness week"? Is there a "Christian Studies" department at your state university? No? Then the dreaded religious right is far less powerful than either the NAACP or NOW.

IMHO, if wacky televangelists like Pat Robertson and TBN didn't exist, the left would have to invent them. Just like they did with Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, who if not for the media would be political non entities.

Finally, much is made of George Bush being a Christian. This doesn't necessarily imply any kind of Christian revival. To paraphrase Voltaire, the voters don't happen to believe in hell themselves, but they think it's a good idea that the guy running things does.

This will be my last post on this thread, since it's getting a bit long winded and repetitive.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to spout off.
God bless.