Saved?

That Hollywood would dare to make a comedy about the excesses of Jesus people is encouraging.

Thus begins the movie review by Roger Ebert ("Saved" - Register-Guard, Friday June 11, 2004). Of course, it only gets worse from there. But before you ask, no, I haven't seen the movie (and probably won't either). However, this review raises important issues for Christians and non-Christians alike. But first, more from the review itself.

"Saved!" is a satire aimed at narrow-minded Christians, using as its weapon the values of a more tolerant Christianity.

OK, so I get the point. I have nothing against comedy, or even comedy about Christians. People are wound much too tight these days (in the name of political correctness), protesting at the drop of a non politically correct hat. If this movie were just Christian comedy, I'd have no problem. But, it doesn't seem to be (at least from Ebert's review).

The main character is high-school age Mary (Malone), and her boyfriend Dean. During a trip to the local pool, we have the following exchange:

Dean bubbles: "I think I'm gay!" Mary is shocked, bangs her head, thinks she sees Jesus (he's actually the pool maintenance guy) and realizes it is her mission to save Dean.

Saving him would involve having sex with him, she reasons, since only such a drastic act could bring him over to the hetero side. She believes that under the circumstances, Jesus will restore her virginity.

But alas, she ends up pregnant, ending up at planned parenthood where we see the following:

Cassandra: There's only one reason Christian girls come downtown to the Planned Parenthood!
Roland: She's planting a pipe bomb?

OK, I think you get the gist of this movie now. So what's the big deal? Two issues present themselves - one for the left who think of themselves as tolerant and politically correct, and one for Christians.

First, for the leftists, imagine if we substituted a few of their favorite groups for Christians and changed the story a little. Suppose we put in gays, Buddhists or some other religious group. Would this movie be given "two thumbs up" among the left elite? I think not. You see, for the leftists tolerance only applies to people who think the same as everyone on the left - no tolerance for different opinions really exists (and diversity is right out the window).

An attack on any other group would be completely unacceptable and would have the Hollywood leftists out in full force. But make fun of Jesus and Christians? That's all in good fun, of course. Associating good Christian girls with planting pipe bombs is way out of line - so much for tolerance and accepting diversity.

But we have another problem, as Ebert says:

Jesus would have embraced the out-casts and misfits, and might have applied situational ethics instead of rigid morality.

Whoops. The dreaded "Jesus wasn't really like the Bible says" argument rears its ugly head. Just like the Jesus seminar people, who actually vote on what Jesus really said (He wouldn't talk about Hell so much, you know), today it's popular to deny what Jesus said and claimed.

I have no problem with people rejecting Jesus Christ as savior and Lord (it's their choice after all), but I do have a problem with people distorting historical reality. Can you find one instance where Jesus applied situational ethics? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Back so soon? What did you find? I thought so. Jesus always condemned sin. Yes, it's forgivable, if you repent and ask for forgiveness, but Jesus never said you can live any way you want and avoid the consequences. God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Sin is always sin, and if you fail to repent and ask Jesus for the forgiveness of your sin you'll end up in a place you don't want to be (Hint: it's hot there). It's your choice - you're free to reject Jesus if you wish, however, you are not free to re-interpret God's word to suit you.

But for the Christian, know this. This movie is how many people see you. Just some "Jesus freak holy roller-right wing bible-thumping fundamentalist" or whatever euphemism is currently popular. Part stems from the way some Christians approach evangelism. You know the type - the "sandwich-board" people who walk around with a sign saying "THE END IS NEAR" and chastising anyone who walks by; just because you have the truth doesn't mean you communicate it well. If your goal is saving souls, you must be as Paul:

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 KJV)

Paul certainly wouldn't compromise the Gospel of Jesus Christ (I won't either), but he knew one thing - speaking to idol-worshiping gentiles was much different than speaking to Jews. If you want to make an impact you've got to understand how to handle people differently. I don't talk the same way to evolutionists as I would to a new-age person. Not that the Gospel is different, just that people hear differently and respond differently also.

As we travel through the Gospels, we see Jesus healing in different ways, and speaking to the woman at the well (John 4) much different than Nicodemus (John 3) - we must learn to as well. Never compromise the truth, but don't hit people over the head with it either. Use some tact. The "fire and brimstone" approach may be true and factually correct, but that doesn't imply it's the best way to address people.

Perhaps if we do, movies about "sandwich-board" Christians will be fewer, and the left will be more tolerant to Christians (though I wouldn't hold my breath).

This page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. In summary, you are free to share (copy and distribute) the work under the following conditions (see the actual license for more information):

Attribution. You must attribute the work to the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should refer back to this web page and include a copyright notice and the license terms.
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Saved?

Search this site