“I’d rather stand with God and be judged by the world, than stand with the world and be judged by God” – Grace Wesley
God’s Not Dead 2 introduces us to Grace Wesley, (played by Melissa Joan Hart), a high school teacher, who refuses to apologize for her faith, even when the school board takes her to court after what they consider to be be proselytizing.
The incident that started it all was her response to a question from a student, Brooke Thawley, (played by Hayley Orrantia), in regards to how Martin Luther King and Gandhi’s non-violent approach to peace can compare to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Much like God’s Not Dead, (which I reviewed here), this sequel revolves around the theme of standing strong for one’s faith and convictions. This time, instead of the teacher as the antagonist, the teacher is the persecuted. Instead of the class as jury, there is a real jury.
As we hear the arguments from both the plaintiff’s attorney (played by Ray Wise), and Grace’s attorney (Jesse Metcalfe), we are asked to consider one question: Is it faith at trial, or is our heroine?
Takeaways from the movie:
I think it is a timely movie with a timely message. Religious civil rights and freedoms are a big battleground right now. As such, God’s Not Dead 2 has been criticized as catering to a “persecution complex”, and in all honesty, I can see why people would say that. It is true that we as believers in the U.S. suffer very little for our faith compared to those in the Middle East. And yet, I believe that any awareness of the growing intolerance (as evidenced by 50 real life court cases at the end of the movie), is not crying wolf, but simply acknowledging written prophecy. (Matthew 10:22). It’s not as much about any present level of persecution, it’s about the gradual trend that society is taking, and recognizing it from the frame of reference of a Christ follower. Pastor Dave (played by David A.R. White) refers to this awareness when he said “If we sit by and do nothing, the pressure that we’re feeling today will mean persecution tomorrow”.
- I found the real-life witnesses used for the defense to be quite compelling, especially that of J. Warner Wallace, (Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University) who wrote “Cold Case Christianity”. In this work, he provides readers with ten principles of cold case investigations and utilizes these principles to examine the reliability of the gospel accounts. The approach of the defense was to prove the historic Jesus, logically and factually. Much was left with to audience to ponder, at least for this viewer.
- I could relate to the underlying theme of doubting one’s faith. Trisha LaFache is back to play the role of Amy Ryan, a reporter diagnosed with cancer. She is in remission now, but begins to wonder if her faith came about only because she was in crisis. There are two other characters in this film (played by Martin Yip and the aforementioned Hayley Orrantia) who are full of questions about faith. In light of the overriding courtroom drama, a parallel is drawn: Christ once asked the question, “who do you say that I am?”, and we must all answer it, both individually and as a society.
- I found the classroom conversation that brought the matter under question in the first place to be a bit far-fetched. A teacher gave a factual, historical answer to a student’s honest question. Even the scriptures quoted were done in context of a historical speech, and none of it even remotely sounded like proselytizing. It would have been more interesting to create a circumstance with more gray area, but I think we just need to take this movie as a caricature that was written to make a point; a simple sketch of real-life situations.
- At times, there were story lines that were incohesive and could have been developed more, or otherwise seemed to drop off for no reason. In one scene, Pastor David is threatened for not turning in his sermon transcript to city authorities. We never see what happens with that. God’s Not Dead 3 perhaps?
- While I don’t want to give away any spoilers, I will say that I found the closing argument to be confusing, in light of the no-nonsense approach of the previous arguments of the defense. It didn’t seem to fit into their decided strategy, and in my opinion unnecessary and probably not likely to be successfully had this been a real courtroom.
Have you ever been put in a position to defend your faith, even at the cost of your job, friends, or family?
Is it possible that the molecules of our brains somehow mix at just the right proportion to create emotion?
Do you ever ask yourself: If there is nothing more within the capsule we call our bodies, are we no more than puppets of flesh that shouldn’t even have a name? If our mind was just an evolution of the physical being of our brains, without an intelligent Creator, how can we trust our thoughts?
If we somehow evolved out of chaos, each molecule arranged to form our being, how is there the moral capacity to know right from wrong?
Do we just react to the elements that have randomly crossed the span of time we are on this Earth? If we are, how is it that we have free will?
If we are a mass of inhabitants on Earth that have multiplied by the millions, while we forever spin on a planet that came together by the forces of the universe to somehow sustain life
Why would it matter what we did with our lives?
If we have intelligence to design and build buildings, where and when was the existence of original intelligence?
If we can save lives with a scalpel, where and when was the existence of original skill?
If we can cultivate the earth for food, who made the seed? If you say the fruit, who made the fruit?
When and how was the first masterpiece of art or music ever crafted?
What or Who created creativity?
How do we know good and evil?
If there is no God, then what or who has brought on the origin of good? In the expanse of space and nothingness, where did kindness begin? How was benevolence conceived?
Where is the hope beyond destruction and heartache? Is there vindication of evil to satisfy our deep-seated need for justice and an end of the pain of this life?
If good and evil had an absolute beginning, won’t there be an absolute victory of one or the other? Can you or I utterly end this struggle? Won’t whatever or whoever orchestrated the beginning also have the capacity to bring about the end?
How is it that we can contemplate eternity?
In regards to all of the above, can an undefined “life-force” of energy possess good to instill compassion within man? Can it distribute intelligence? Can it bear emotion to be able to pass on a capacity to love and grieve, to be glad or to anger?
He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.” Eccles. 3:11
The registration assistant glances down at the cross around Josh Wheaton’s neck, looks down at his class choice, raises an eyebrow, and adds, “Let’s just say you’re wandering into the snake pit. … Think Roman Coliseum. Lions. People cheering for your death.”
Can’t say he wasn’t warned.
While not exactly the Roman Coliseum, the movie “God’s not Dead”, certainly sets the stage for this poor guy to be eaten up alive.
The main character, Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper), is a college freshman who finds his faith and courage immediately challenged by his atheist philosophy professor. It all starts when Professor Radisson (Kevin Sorbo), demands that everyone turn in papers saying, “God is Dead” so that he doesn’t have to waste time arguing that point. His class, his rules. And what he says, goes.
When Josh refuses, (and he is the only one who refuses) he is given an ultimatum. Either agree that god is dead or take the podium and try to convince the unsupportive class that God is not dead. (Funny, I thought the professor said he wasn’t going to debate that topic, but apparently he changed his mind).
Throughout the movie, Josh is bullied by the professor, cornered and threatened in a hallway, and nearly humiliated in front of the class. Despite losing his girlfriend and the mounting pressure to give in, he continues to stand firm in his conviction, drawing upon what I think is the scripture theme of the movie:
“Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:23).
Some good takeaways from the movie:
“God’s not Dead” does not leave room for interpretation or symbolism. It comes right out and speaks the name of Christ and His Scripture. It professes Jesus as Lord and Savior, which is huge in this world of relativism and vague universal-all-is-god-love-peace-mumbo-jumbo.
It did a good job of portraying the theme of standing up for your beliefs by weaving several more characters who ended up doing just that, in their own ways.
A Muslim girl (Hadeel Sittu) is beaten and kicked out of her house by her father when she professes Christ.
A Chinese student (Paul Kwo) shocks his own father (who lives in Communist China) when he texts “God’s not Dead”
Professor’s Radisson’s girlfriend, who we find out converted to Christianity, finds the courage to break up with him.
By allowing the audience to see past the hardened exterior of some of the characters, I was reminded that I can’t assume that anyone is beyond conviction, beyond God’s love.
It drew an interesting parallel in showing how people can react differently to the same circumstance (dying of cancer). While one character became bitter at God, another one turned to God.
This movie has gotten criticism for being overblown in its portrayal of Professor Radisson, and I agree. Maybe I’m naïve, but to have a professor demand signed papers saying “God is Dead”, and (on top of that), not having more than one student object to it seems implausible. At least not in the country…at least not yet.
From the exaggerated stare-downs and seething, disgusted “I loathe you” glares, to his red-faced outbursts, the character of Professor Radisson comes across as a one-dimensional caricature of the angry atheist — if not a little creepy that he has nothing better to do with his time than stalk his student.
I’m not sure how convincing this film is to anyone who isn’t faith-minded, simply because of the way the opposition is handled. Had the filmmakers been fair to Sorbo’s character and created him to be more reasonable and open to a thoughtful dialogue (i.e. more realistic), it may have evened out the playing field and drawn more viewers to honestly consider the question of God. As it was written, the atheist stereotype forces a shallow approach to the movie and probably puts outsiders on the defense. Think of this way – Christians are always poked fun of. Are we to do the same to our enemies?
The aforementioned scene of a Muslim student being slapped and dragged out of the house by her strict father when he discovers that she is a Christian can be taken as a stereotype against Islam. I don’t believe it was intended to be, but it just shows the reality that has happened to some.
In one of Josh’s lectures, he implied that God worked through the process of evolution to create man, which is a lie. My Bible says that God created man through Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis (Genesis 2:7, 2:22). Additionally, when Josh was asked why he was willing to risk so much to defend his faith, he answered “because Jesus is my friend, and I don’t want to let Him down.” While there is a sense that Jesus is our Friend, this answer alone is incomplete and weak. How about, “I’m doing it in obedience and love for my Lord and Savior”? It seems that we as Christians have become far too casual with God, using terms we could also use for a roommate we’re helping with a mid-term.
Despite these weaknesses, I am happy to hear the Gospel proclaimed in this movie and especially the story of redemption in the end. It has an especially fitting title as we come up to the Easter season. We may even add a line to our typical greeting:
“He is Risen”
“He is Risen, Indeed”
“Our God’s not Dead”
“He’s surely Alive”
Has anyone seen this movie? What are your thoughts? What would you do if you were in a similar situation? Would you step up to the challenge despite the cost?
I first read this a few months ago and knew I had to re-post it here. It’s a conversation between two babies in their mother’s womb. One thinks there is no life after delivery, the other believes there is a brand new, greater world to come.
It’s an analogy that draws a brilliant parallel to the conversations we have heard between atheists and believers for years.
It seems incomprehensible that a baby doesn’t even realize the existence of its own mother or the evidences of the next life. You want to yell back, “Why can’t you see it?!”, and yet I wonder if that is how mankind seems to heaven when we don’t believe.
I searched to find the author’s name but couldn’t find one. If you know who it is, please share it, I’ll add the credit.
In a mother’s womb were two babies.
One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”
The other replies, “why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later….
“Nonsense,” says the other. “There is no life after delivery. What would that life be?”
“I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths.”
The other says “This is absurd! Walking is impossible. And eat with our mouths? Ridiculous. The umbilical cord supplies nutrition. Life after delivery is to be excluded. The umbilical cord is too short.”
“I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here.” the other replies, “No one has ever come back from there. Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery it is nothing but darkness and anxiety and it takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” says the other, “but certainly we will see mother and she will take care of us.”
“Mother??” You believe in mother? Where is she now?
“She is all around us. It is in her that we live. Without her there would not be this world.”
“I don’t see her, so it’s only logical that she doesn’t exist.”
To which the other replied, “sometimes when you’re in silence you can hear her, you can perceive her.” I believe there is a reality after delivery and we are here to prepare ourselves for that reality.
As a Christian, there is one element missing in this story. No, no one has physically come back from death to tell about it. No one, that is, except Jesus Christ…and what He did paved the way for anyone who trusts in Him to have eternal (spiritual) life.
“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)