Why This Christian Film Prof Hated God’s Not Dead

I didn’t want to. I thought I would just have a couple of issues with it I could point out to my film classes, like I do with Facing the Giants. You know, it needs some screenwriting and acting help, but hooray for a church making a movie and hooray for promoting revival.

Then I watched a trailer and got really skeptical. But a colleague said, “Some non-Christian neighbors of ours saw the movie and they’ve been asking us questions about our faith, so maybe it’s doing some good.” And I felt convicted, because who am I to stand in the way of anyone being reached by the Gospel?

So last night I watched God’s Not Dead and I didn’t like it. But I got convicted again and thought maybe I was too biased. After all, I’m a Christian academic and a Christian filmmaker. Maybe I’m a snob.GND-FB-Cover

Then I realized that this was one of the problems, and one main reason I can and will clearly state the following: I hated God’s Not Dead.

I don’t just dislike or have a couple of issues with the film. I’m pulling out what I consider a four-letter-word: Hate. I hated it. And here’s why:

  1. All of the non-Christian or non-converts in the film are villains.

All of them. All of the speaking characters are either professing Christians already, make a profession of “born again-ness” or remain not just antagonists, but villains. The most sympathetic non-Christian is the Muslim dad who throws his daughter (a Christian convert) out of the house and is in tears about it. At least he is portrayed as human enough to be broken up about what his non-Christian religious convictions cause him to do.

The most pointed example of this is the death of the professor character (Professor Radisson) played by Kevin Sorbo (you know, TV’s Hercules?). He’s not just an atheist academic, he’s a man with serious psychological problems and no professional boundaries. And he converts to Christianity after being hit by a car and right before his death.

There are two problems with this plot point. The first is that the “good” Christians get rid of an antagonist in a guilt-free way. This is the narrative equivalent of colonialist Christians baptizing native babies then bashing their heads against rocks. We don’t want you around. But we need to be okay with getting rid of you. So we’ll make sure you’re saved first, then have you die. The second is weak, weak, weak screenwriting. If the only real motivation for someone to convert to Christianity is his impending death, we’ve not preached the Gospel well (nor let the Holy Spirit do the good work of conviction well). This screenwriting device only serves to heighten emotional stakes, but like the rest of the film (except for the subplot of the Islamic family, which if developed and better directed would be a powerful story) it doesn’t earn the emotion, it just globs it on with slow dramatic zooms and heavy soundtracking, the same way Paula Dean globs on butter and oil on pasta.

  1. The film’s definition of Christian is cultural, and far too narrow.

The main plot revolves around a Christian in a philosophy classroom. Because that’s never happened before? Also, all the Christians in the film are the same brand of born again evangelicals, culturally stamped by the presence of Willie Robertson from Duck Dynasty. I’m a Christian and that guy doesn’t represent my faith. Where was the Episcopalian in that classroom? The Catholic? The non-mainline Wesleyan (that’s me). The high church has by and large been better than mainline Christianity at engaging with both academia and art. But the presence of anyone who was Christian and already academically engaged would have negated the plot. Which means the plot was weak and the demographic depictions too one-sided.

  1. The polarizing vilification of academia.

The film polarizes Christianity. In this corner, smart people who teach at colleges but are verbally abusive. And in this corner, young people who are full of emotional conviction and earnestness.

You can learn a lot about a movie’s intended messages by studying the protagonist and antagonist of the story. God’s Not Dead’s protagonist is Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper) an earnest, bright, young white man (note: the hero is a young white male. Now read any of the writing going on about Ferguson, and the debate this country has been having for centuries about the white, male, and, sadly yes, Christian establishment). But stereotypical hero aside, he’s a nice guy. (Also note, the student wins the day, not the prof. Where are all the Christians who lambasted Harry Potter because “kids” defied all the authority figures? Once again, the prof/authority figure had to be vilified in order to justify his student defying him. What if he hadn’t been a mean, angry, emotionally manipulative man? What if he had just been a really good logician who was an atheist? Would it still be okay for the student to “outsmart” him or go against his authority?)

The antagonist is a white male too. He’s a philosophy prof who makes students sign an agreement on the first day of class that God is dead. When Josh doesn’t sign it, he’s suddenly assigned a lecture series and teaches the rest of the class (which doesn’t make sense at all; was there no other topic in the syllabus?). Professor Radisson can’t just be an atheist. He has to also demean and verbally abuse his Christian girlfriend. Oh, and all his colleagues, who come over for the dinner where he verbally abuses his girlfriend, apparently agree with him. Because everyone in academia thinks the same thing? Hang around some department offices or visit a committee meeting for ten seconds and you’ll realize that’s not the case. The academy actually encourages people to disagree and discuss why, since that’s how we learn.

And believe it or not, people can disagree and still love each other. I know mainline Christianity doesn’t want to hear that, but it’s actually true. Christians have had diverse opinions for years. And it didn’t stop them from loving each other or serving together. (Pretty sure the apostle Paul talked about this. Remember 1 Corinthians 12 and the parts of the body? Unity in diversity? Paul also talked about the problem of dissention, which is not the same as being different. I’ve always though if I were a part of the body of Christ I was probably the armpit. Actually, one would think artists and filmmakers should be the eyes. If that’s the case, it makes me think about specks and planks…)

Back to the prof as villain: Let’s concede there are some antagonistic profs. I’ve had some. I’ve even been the antagonistic prof. (I’m kind of doing it now, right?) And since the film takes the time to roll in the end credits a list of pending or closed cases where students wanted first amendment rights in order to profess their faith in the classroom, I’ll even grant that there are classrooms where that might happen. But the script smacks of coloring up the hard-nosed atheist academic to make him look like a “bad guy.”

No academic I know, or have had, as antagonistic or differently viewed from me as they may have been, would ask me to give up my faith in God. I can’t say it happens in all cases, but I would wager the vast majority of philosophy classrooms are about teaching logic, not teaching dogma.

I had a tough philosophy prof in college. I went to my great-grandmother’s funeral and missed the first class. I contacted her but she didn’t reply. Since I missed the first class I had to borrow and copy a syllabus from a classmate, and I failed the first paper since I didn’t have the assignment rubric. She made me question a lot of things. But when we were talking about evidence for the supernatural, she looked around the classroom and said, “How do you know God exists?” No one answered. “Come on,” she said, “You’re at a Catholic college! Where’s your St. Augustine? Where’s your Thomas Aquinas? Those are your boys.” And I was pretty humbled by that. I was a Christian, but I didn’t know my faith as well as I should have.

Philosophy classrooms, as I understand them, and liberal arts classrooms in general, are about critical inquiry. We’re not there to teach people what to think, but how to think better. What I learned in Intro to Philosophy was not whether or not God existed, but the rules of logic. Those rules brought me to a conclusion. And the conclusion I came to is much stronger than the film’s.

I don’t want there to be “proof” of God’s existence. It is impossible to prove God exists. But, it is also impossible to prove God does not exist. Therefore, my relationship with the Divine is predicated on, you guessed it, faith. The film tries to get there, but it mixes up a rhetorical debate with an emotionally charged story, which weakens any argument it was trying to make. Especially since this prof is a singularly bad prof and bad person. And where was his department chair, by the way? Why didn’t someone take this prof aside and say, “Your agenda is getting in the way of learning outcomes here. And you can’t personally threaten students.” This is the most unprofessional professor I’ve ever seen depicted on screen, and knowing how Hollywood treats academics (The Nutty Professor anyone?), that’s saying something.

The bad smart people idea is typified by the prof’s girlfriend Mina (Cory Oliver) visting subplotted pastor Reverend Dave (David A. R. White). She describes Professor Radisson’s belittling (and gender profiling, but never mind). “Let me guess,” the pastor says, ”He’s really smart.” Uh oh. Can’t be a Christian then, I guess.

American culture has become increasingly polarized, and Christianity has succumbed to it. I felt guilty for not liking this movie, even though it negates what I try to do every day, which is teach students that Christ is a perspective for learning (for reason, even), and that filmmaking is an art. I no longer feel guilty. Not one bit. Not liking this movie does not make me less Christian. God’s Not Dead is the movie I wanted to make when I was twenty years old, full of religious ardor and a need for dramatic emotional intensity. But I took a philosophy class, a real one. And I got a film degree, so I learned about how to tell better stories. While I admire Christians trying make films people want to watch, that often means they pander, preaching to the choir and riding on emotionally manipulative storytelling (and, apparently, former TV stars). The ends do not justify the means. Christ could use a message on a Coke bottle to further His kingdom if he so chose. It doesn’t give us an excuse to be poor storytellers. We serve an excellent God. We should be making excellent art, worthy of the gifts God has given us. Christians own the greatest story ever told, and this is what “we” come up with?

I know this movie was a valid Christian experience for a lot of people. And God bless that. But for a Christian film prof, it flew in the face of everything I’m trying to do: call people to not just conversion, but holiness. Help Christians engage in critical inquiry, speaking the truth in love. Make Christian art that is more that pop culture product, but expresses the power of redemption by using the power of the medium in sophisticated and engaging ways. Don’t just redeem the story; redeem the storytelling.

I’ve heard the movie Calvary is really well done. I’m looking forward to that.



About jenletherer

BA, Theater and Speech Communication; English:Creative Writing. Siena Heights University, 2002. MFA, Film Production. Boston University, 2005
This entry was posted in Movies I can't stop thinking about and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Why This Christian Film Prof Hated God’s Not Dead

  1. coffeeblue42 says:

    Agree with everything in your review:) Stigmatizing atheists as cynical morons in mainstream Christian media does nothing to improve the crazy polarised prejudices that many Christians hold. Christians don’t hold a monopoly on morality, and that needs to be admitted. At least we have a God who can work with any rubbish we give him.

  2. I agree wholeheartedly. We have an intimate relationship with the creator of creativity (and diversity) who connected the unconnected, challenged cultural paradigms, and inspired people to join Him on a journey of inversion. I personally do not even like the terms “Christian Music” or “Christian Films”. Only people can follow Christ. Art is art and all of it has the potential to reveal truth and glorify God as He speaks through it. As a creative (filmmaker & musician) who follows Christ, my creative works will reflect my worldview and my faith, but God is bigger than both and will bust through the box to meet people where they are. As a creative, I am grateful for diversity and grateful that God is Lord over all of it. I can rest in that freedom as I journey with Him.

    Check out our film Reparando: http://www.hulu.com/watch/542087

  3. eradifyerao says:

    Wow. Thank you for that honest presentation of information from a reasoning freedom-breathing Christian. I felt I was surrounding by emotionally-driven Christians who saw apologetic facts desposited into a terribly written, and cinematically poor film. And I am supposed to love it because I am a Christian? I love that quote – “We serve an excellent God, we should be making excellent art…” You said alot of great stuff here, but that was just one example. 🙂

  4. ds says:

    I agree with all the points you’re making, but your article is so full of typos it’s hard to read. If you want people to take you seriously, especially as a professor, you really need to proofread your work before putting it out for the world to see. Just sayin’. Please feel free to delete this comment after you’ve edited your article.

    • jenletherer says:


      I actually went back over it this morning and picked up the three copyedit errors I could see. I’m notoriously bad at copyediting. You have a point, and this is one of my great frustrations as a blogger. I can’t see all the errors in my work no matter how many times I copyedit it.

      Did you know that when the Amish make quilts they deliberately leave one mistake in the piece to remind them they are human and fallible? Sometimes I feel the same way about manuscripts.

      Thanks for your input.

  5. Bryan Cloyd says:

    Well thought-out article, Jen! I haven’t seen the movie, but there were some things that came across to me as “cliché” from just watching the trailer. Your comment about Christ using a bottle of Coke to further His kingdom was epic. For certain, we CANNOT put Him in a bottle when sharing HIS message. Non-believers see enough “canned” Christianity; they truly need to see “the real thing.”

  6. EducationMGT says:


    I appreciate your perspective on the movie. As a Ph.D. in Ed Psych, retired faculty, retired college administrator (at a Wesleyan school, no less ;-D) and president, and current higher education consultant, I understand your desire for quality.

    However, I suggest that your premise that it lacked quality, creativity, depth, etc. misses a point about Christian film. Given your credentials, I’m sure your familiar with Rob Briner’s book, Roaring Lambs. While it’s been a number of years since I read the book, the primary focus I remember is that Christians should engage the culture in any way that they can, particularly in a field Briner loved: film and television. That said, this film accomplished that in spades. Does that make it the best film ever? No. However, they have engaged beyond the theory to the practice. They’ve done what neither of us have done: produce a Christian film released to a wide market and accomplish what God called them to do.

    So, it may not replace Shawshank Redemption as my favorite movie, I’m a fan of what was accomplished.

    • jenletherer says:


      I appreciate your comments. I agree, at least we are moving from theory to interaction with film and television. But the Evangelical church tends to copy popular culture, and not copy it well, and that was one frustration with this film. I’ve seen a lot of Hollywood movies that are just as bad or worse. So amen that a nominally Christian production has made a film with this much impact. However, that’s also part of why I wrote a response. I believe this film did some good. But I also think it did significant harm, polarizing Christians and academics, and copying poor screenwriting, audience pandering filmmaking methods. Mediocre art should not be “good enough” to carry the Gospel. In my opinion, the Gospel deserves a film that has much more artistic veracity.

      • EducationMGT says:


        My apologies for not seeing your response before. I happened to see it when I logged into my WordPress account.

        There is, perhaps, another thread here that is worth exploring that I and others have been contemplating: something beyond what has become of evangelicalism. (I’d say post-evangelicalism, but that would sound like postmodernism to many evangelicals and scare them off. . .at least the conservatives amongst the group. . .or it would sound like something cheap and tawdry which was part of your concern in the first place.) For many of us looking at the evangelical movement in general, we’re finding the substance lacking as a whole. It has become institutionalized to the point of being meaningless for so many. It is a slick system, a political ideology without heart (in too many cases), and lacking the core standards it once held. The core of being an evangelical should be about reaching the world with the Gospel of Christ and a personal relationship with Jesus. That often seems lacking today. So, we are searching for the true spirit of evangelicalism (that has both focus of duty and relationship) and not finding it in what is labeled as being evangelical. That, of course, is in part to the definition being provided not by true believers but by opponents.

        To that point, it gives you and others of expertise in your field a good launching point. You have the opportunity to say, “Here is one effort. Let’s do it better now.” Then we balance out actually doing the work that we are called to do with doing a quality job doing (sSee Ecc 11:4-10).

        I look forward to your leadership in this field. 😀


  7. Pingback: SAU Community of Learners March 27, 2015 | Jenny Crozier

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s