Today's Opinion Journal contains, as

Today's Opinion Journal contains, as it usually does, an article on faith. Today's article, written by Jonathan Last is on the movie Saved!.

Much has been made about how touchy a subject Evangelical Christianity is, and Saved!
has, apparently (I haven't seen it)parodied it rather well, without
being heavy-handed or overly disapproving. Last disagrees with this
premise and argues that the acclaim heaped upon this movie by the
critics proves his point.

With "Saved!" having gone wide last week, the rest of
America now has a chance to see Brian Dannelly's satire of life at an
evangelical high school. Or, as the film's producer, Michael Stipe, put
it: "Saved!" is "like those monster vampire high school kind of movies,
only here the monsters are Jesus-freak teenagers."
{...}That anyone could believe such a movie to have "Christian appeal"
is one measure of how out of touch Hollywood is. The irreverence of
"Saved!" consists of portraying most Christians as dim, many as
malevolent and all as hypocritical. Wisdom and good faith do make an
appearance in "Saved!," but they are displayed by explicitly
antireligious characters.
{...}David Denby, in The New Yorker, solemnly nodded, adding that
although "Saved!" was not an attack on Christianity, "to make it at all
took courage."
Actually, it took no courage, since the movie plays straight into
Hollywood's smug stereotypes about religion, especially the
non-Buddhist variety. And besides, the Christian community did not rise
up to smite the makers of "Saved!" The movie was given respectful--one
might say gentle--treatment in places such as Christianity Today. The
lone voice raised against it was Jerry Falwell's. Talking about this
condemnation, Mr. Dannelly admitted that "it doesn't exactly hurt."
{...}Mr. Stipe has recently said that "anyone of faith who is secure in
that faith probably has a sense of humor about it and would like the
movie." Perhaps so. And "Saved!" is not without likable qualities, as
Joe Morgenstern noted in this newspaper. But there are all sorts of
faith. Those who believe in abortion found it easy enough to be
bothered by "Saved!" Those who believe in the evil of American
Christians found much to recommend it.

Now, I've already said that I haven't seen this movie. But I do want to
see it. I may be completely wrong about it, and if so I'll post a big
takeback if necessary. So, take my defense of it with a grain of salt,
ok?
Last appears to take the tack that any movie about Evangelical
Christianity is a bad movie. Particularly if a. it's made by people in
Hollywood and b. the critics think it's a well made movie. These two
factors make this movie a bad thing
in Last's book. He's, however, got to do better than that if he really
wants to make the claim that Evangelical Christians---and their
beliefs---are being slammed by this movie. First off, we should be
clear just whom this movie and Last are referencing when they say
"Evangelical Christians." A couple of years ago, at mass, Father asked
my fellow attendees if they thought of themselves as "evangelical" and
asked those who did to raise their hands. One lone man in the front of
the church did. No one else thought of themselves as "evangelical,"
because after all, evangelical, in today's society, means "Born Again."
That if you're evangelical, you're a Bible thumper. A member of the God
Squad. Someone who goes to Bible study; someone who uses the Good Book
as the road, and not as a map. But most of all, it meant someone who
felt it was their duty to actively go out and show people the truth of
Jesus' words and to get them to accept Him as their personal savior.
Now, most Catholics don't do that; we leave it to the missionaries and
the priests. We'll help someone if they ask us to explain it to them,
but for the most part, prostelytizing is not a big part of the average
Catholic's daily routine. Father's point was to make us look at the
situation differently; to challenge our preconceived notions; he wanted
us all to be forthright with our beliefs and to share them with
nonbelievers. Because, technically speaking, Catholics are supposed to
do that. We just don't follow through.
But Born Again's do do that. They spread the word. And, over
the years, this has brought out a bit of righteousness in them, I
believe. They're new to the party, speaking strictly in terms of how
old Christianity is, and they want to show off to make sure people
notice them. That's fine, and I don't have an issue with it. I do,
however, take issue when they tell me I'm going to hell because I
haven't accepted their version of Christianity. And they don't
have any problem with doing this. They don't see that they might offend
someone with their words because, honestly, they believe they're saving someone
and that's worth any offense they might cause.
Back when I managed the coffee shop, I had one kid working for me who
needed two weeks off to go to Saipan with his youth group from church.
I worked it and he went. He was changed by this trip. Where before he
was just an average follower, that youth group was a good place to meet
girls, this trip flipped a switch in him and he became an ardent
believer. The trip was a youth conference in the tropics and part of
that trip was bringing the Good News to the youth of Saipan. He told me
a story about "exorcising" a young native man in a hotel room with
other members of his youth group. He actually used the term
"exorcising"; they were "bringing out the demons that posssessed this
kid." And he believed it, hook, line and sinker. He said the boy wasn't
a Christian; he was of Japanese descent; and before he had practiced
the traditional Animist religion of his forefathers. They had wheedled
the boy into their hotel room, and the exorcism proceeded from there.
What Brian described as the "demons coming out" sounded to me like the
kid was physically resisting being "exorcised." Much writhing on the
floor, the kid being forcibly held down by six American kids, and then
finally succumbing because it was the only way that he'd get these
people off of him. If that kid ever practiced Christianity, I'd be
really surprised, but Brian was sure
that he'd been exorcised and that he'd accepted Jesus and would be
faithful for the rest of his life. I just stood there as he told me
this, jaw hanging wide open, shocked as all hell. Brian didn't even
notice my dismay. He thought it was great! I wonder, and still wonder,
how normal this type of behavior is among the evangelicals. If it's
considered rote, well...there's a problem there. Even the Catholics
didn't have too much luck with forced conversions. Evangelical
Christianity is forthright. It is out there,
right in your face, and some of its most ardent believers are
teenagers. There's a reason why most ideological groups, whether they
be political or religious in nature, try to get the young on board as
soon as possible and it's because kids simply do not have the
life-experience to help them judge the merits of the arguments
presented. Look at communism, particularly the Soviet and Chinese
models---they got the kids while they were young, and furthermore asked
for proof of these kids' "faith" by having them turn in people who
weren't "believers." Look at the preponderance of youth groups attached
to churches. Look at the Catholic School System. If you get them while
they're young, odds are they will stick with it their whole life. I
know. I'm a prime example of this. I went to Catholic School for twelve
years. First grade through senior year in high school. I got the whole
kit and caboodle when it came to Catholicism. The habit of Evangelical
Christianity however encourages zealotry when it comes right down to
it. I don't mean to slam anyone's beliefs, but to the rest of us, it's
a bit offputting that the Armies of Evangelical Christianity are being
formed when the kids don't have enough life experience to know that
maybe, just maybe, other people choose to believe differently.
The difference that scares me is that action is involved with
Evangelical Christianity. Deeds are commanded to be brought forth as
proof. Go forth and save! people. For Evangelical Christians, it's a
moral imperative to save people from the fires of hell. Kids don't have
enough reasoning under their belts, or nuance in their systems, to know
that peer pressure (or holding someone down until they accept what you
have to say) is not the best way to win an argument.
It's not the faith Saved! parodies, it's the behavior attached
to the faith. Last doesn't get this point...at all. I haven't even seen
the movie and I get that. Why doesn't Last? He makes the assumption
that if you parody the behavior, you're parodying the faith, and this
is confirmed for him by the fact that people in Hollywood who have
always been anti-Christian and reviewers are for this movie. What utter
crap. Get an argument, will ya? If I, as a Catholic, who admittedly has
problems with the behavior attached to Evangelical Christianity, can
see the difference, why can't he?

Posted by Kathy at June 1, 2004 12:40 PM | TrackBack