movies and worldview

Hi all,

Here is another paper that I wrote. I thought that y'all might enjoy it. I have a challenge. Try to answer the same questions with one of your favorite movies! Let me know how it goes. The goal is to look at films in a Christian perspective and what worldview is behind the film.

Film Analysis of Pocahontas and Star Wars

Andrew Higginbotham

Pocahontas

1. Who is the Producer/Director?

Mike Gabriel and Eric Goldberg
2. What other projects have they done?

Mike Gabriel: (Director and Artist): The Rescuers Down Under (1990), Oliver and Company (1988), (Director): Lorenzo (2004), (Artist): The Black Cauldron (1985), The Great Mouse Detective (1986), Fun with Mr. Future (1982).

Eric Goldberg: (Artist): Aladdin (1992), Hercules (1997), Tom and Jerry (2006), Fat Albert (2004), Son of the Mask (2005), The Princess and the Cobbler (1993), Rupert and the Frog (1985), Raggedy Ann and Andy (1977), (TV Artist): Ziggy’s Gift (1982), Dino-sores (2006), (Director): Pirates of the Caribbean, Fantasia 2000, The Emperor’s New Groove, Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003), The Pink Panther (2006), A Monkey’s Tail (2006), The Magic Lamp (2000).
3. Who is the intended audience for this film?

It is rated G (a children’s movie).
4. What is the Struggle (Man v. Man; Man v. Nature; Man v. Self)?

Man v. Man: the Englishmen “invade” America and fight the Indians who fight back.
5. Who is the Protagonist (The main character engaged in the Struggle)? Pocahontas, The film is centered around her meeting with the Englishmen and getting to know (and falling in love with) John Smyth (according to the film).
6. Who is the Antagonist (The main character(s) opposing the Protagonist)? Governor Ratcliffe: Who commands the Englishmen to “kill every native” and destroys the natural recourses of the New World (according to the film).
7. What is the Plot (How is the Struggle played out)?

The Englishmen land in the New World to look for gold and meet Indians with whom they begin hostilities. Meanwhile John Smyth scouts the country and meets Pocahontas. After getting to know her (and falling in love with her) both of them attempt to prevent further hostilities between the two peoples. Smith is captured and sentenced to death. Just in time Pocahontas arrives and saves his life. Then the governor attempts to continue hostilities by shooting Powhatan but Smyth takes the bullet and is sent back to England to receive medical treatment, at which time he and Pocahontas must part.
8. What is the principle Worldview promoted in the film (Theism, atheism, pragmatism, secular humanism, etc)?

Pantheism is the worldview because it shows nature as god.
9. How is the Worldview promoted?

It is promoted through Pocahontas consulting “Grandmother Willow” and other “spirits” in nature who guide her in what to do. Also the song “Colors of the Wind” because it promotes nature worship.
10. Critique
a. Was the film well made? Yes, from a technical standard.
b. Was the film praiseworthy?

No, it did not even give the true history of Jamestown. For example, John Smyth and Pocahontas never fell in love, she in actuality looked at him as a father figure.
c. Did the film honor God?

No, because He was rejected in favor of “spirits” and other demonic apparitions. Also, when the Englishmen landed, the cross was excluded from the ceremony and the God-honoring speech given at that time. In fact, the only mention of God (in any form including Providence) was at the end of the movie when Thomas says to John Smyth, “God’s speed”.
d. Did the film promote morality/immorality?

By the world’s standards, no. Because there were no inappropriate scenes or any other content which the world considers inappropriate for children. But by biblical standards yes, because of the film’s inclusion of John Smyth and Pocahontas rolling around in each other’s arms and kissing outside of marriage.
e. Did the film use inappropriate language/content? No
f. Was the inappropriate language/content challenged or rebuked?

There was none.
g. Did the film succeed in promoting its worldview?

It depends by what one means by successful. By secular standards it did because the worldview was consistent throughout the whole movie. Also it helped to promote the falsehood of the noble savage and presenting a completely false history of Jamestown.

Star wars Episode IV

1. Who is the Producer/Director? George Lucas
2. What other projects have they done?

THX 1138 (1971) • American Graffiti (1973) • Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977) • Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) • Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002) • Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) Look at Life (1965) • Herbie (1966) • Freiheit (1966) • 1:42:08 (1966) • The Emperor (1967) • Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB (1967) • Anyone Lived in a Pretty How Town (1967) • 6-18-67 (1967) • Filmmaker (1968) • The Making of 'The Rain People' (1969) • Bald: The Making of 'THX 1138' (1971)
3. Who is the intended audience for this film? P.G. Teenagers through adults.
4. What is the Struggle (Man v. Man; Man v. Nature; Man v. Self)?

Man v. Man: thus the one side (represented by Luke) is fighting against the other (Darth Vader).
5. Who is the Protagonist (The main character engaged in the Struggle)?

Luke Skywalker, who is the hope of the republic.

6. Who is the Antagonist (The main character(s) opposing the Protagonist)?

Darth Vader who is the main leader of the empire.
7. What is the Plot (How is the Struggle played out)?

The Film follows the life of Luke Skywalker as he learns how to use the “force” and helps in the struggle against the Empire. The film opens with secret plans being stolen from the Empire. They are transported by Princess Leia onboard a starship, which is attacked. The Plans are then hidden in a droid (R2D2) who escapes and with the help of his new master (Luke) gives a message to Obi-Wan Kenobi who responds by going to the planet Alderaan. When he arrives, the planet has been destroyed and they are taken on board the Empire’s space station. After rescuing Princess Leia, they (without Obi-wan) leave the star station and arrive at the Rebel base. Then a battle ensues that ends in the destruction of the “Death Star” and reward for Hon and Luke.
8. What is the principle Worldview promoted in the film (Theism, atheism, pragmatism, secular humanism, etc)?

It is a form of Theism called Eastern Pantheism because the film demonstrates that there is not one God but rather an impersonal force which has a light and dark side (like yin and yang). Obi-wan said this is an energy field that is created by all living beings that surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.
9. How is the Worldview promoted?

Through: showing aliens which presupposes evolution, and the “force” which is an eastern yin/yang idea.
10. Critique
a. Was the film well made? Yes, actually it was on the cutting edge for its time.
b. Was the film praiseworthy?

Yes, from a secular perspective because it was exciting and well done. No, from a biblical perspective because it denies the existence of the personal God.
c. Did the film honor God?

No. Instead it honored the eastern yin/yang perception of life
d. Did the film promote morality/immorality?

Morality because there was no immorality in the film.
e. Did the film use inappropriate language/content?

Yes. A couple of four letter words were used frequently.
f. Was the inappropriate language/content challenged or rebuked? No
g. Did the film succeed in promoting its worldview?

Yes, just look at the way it opened the door for eastern religion in the west. Today yoga, eastern meditation, and other similar practices are prevalent even in the church. The film unlocked the door to this and made people curious about eastern religion.

More Papers

Here is another paper from school.

What are y'all thinking of them? Please comment. My hope is to help you better understand the faith. I would love to get some different views of these papers.

Paper Three for Dogmatics, Assessing the Statement
“Each human has the choice of whether to sin or not.”
Andrew Higginbotham

In attempting to look at this statement, “Each human has the choice of whether to sin or not,” I had a difficult time analyzing it at first. But after looking at it several times, I do believe that it is a Poor theological statement. Why? Because it leaves out the doctrine of Total Depravity and embraces Pelagianism. To be sure, there is an area where humans have a choice. However, when applied to salvation, works, or most other areas, we will choose the evil because of our sin nature. The only area in which we have a “choice” is when using common grace.

I will begin by defining several key terms. 1. Total Depravity. The Westminster confession of faith says “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.” What this is saying is simply that Total Depravity does not mean absolute depravity or that man is as bad as he can be. Rather it means that man in every area is effected by the fall of Adam. This includes his intellect.1 2. Pelagianism is a heresy that has been condemned by many church councils. Its basic tenets are that
A. Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
B. Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
C. Infants are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
D. The whole human race neither dies through Adam’s sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
E. The Mosaic Law is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
F. Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin. 3. Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.2

When looking at any issue, it is important to begin by asking the question: what does the Bible say? Let us look at the answer to this question in relation to the theme statement. Romans 3:10-11 answers, “As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” This verse is probably one of the strongest in support of the Calvinist position of Total Depravity. None will seek God even given the chance! Romans 3:23 is clear and concise when it states, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 7:18 tells us, “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

As you can see, the Bible clearly supports a non-pelagian viewpoint of man. He is fallen and in rebellion to God. He is totally depraved and with no good thing in him.

Now that we have determined what the Bible teaches about man, let us redirect our attention to the original statement, “Each human has the choice of whether to sin or not.” This is clearly, (when applied to salvation) a Pelagian comment. Why? Because, in the final analysis, this statement assumes that the mind of man is injured, not fallen and depraved. This radically changes the effect of the fall of man and the gospel that Jesus, Peter, and Paul preached. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,” Romans 6:23. What is sin? As we said earlier, sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. Have we all sinned? Yes (Rom. 3:23)! If we all have sinned, is this not a contradiction to points C and F of Pelagianism. We then see that this is clearly a false doctrine. And the statement when used in this context is not an accurate theological statement.

Let us now examine the same statement in a different context. In this example, we are discussing a saved person. This person has a form of a free will. However, as Paul himself said in Romans 7:15, “For what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.” Thus we see that even for a Christian, sin is still a real possibility and more likely than not we will sin sometimes simply because of our sin nature which we got from Adam. This is not to say that all men (saved or unsaved) can and do the “right” thing from time to time. However, notice that word “right”. It implies a biblical worldview! Thus to determine right and wrong the unsaved person must borrow from the saved person’s worldview. This ability is simply a part of common grace. We all can make choices, carry out plans, breathe the air, and many other common tasks. What separates a Christian from any other person is that he has one ability that common grace does not supply, namely, pleasing God. What is pleasing to God? John 14:15, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” Since we are commanded (as believers) to love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind, (Mark 12:30-31). And then we are told if we love Him what we will do, that is, keep His commandments. What is the first commandment? It is to love the Lord. This is one area in which the unbeliever cannot make use of common grace. Thus we see that although the unbeliever can use common grace to make a “right” choice, yet he does lack the ability to always choose the right.

In the end, we can conclude that this statement, “Each human has the choice of whether to sin or not,” is a poor theological statement. It points to a Pelagian view of man and not to a biblical one. It leaves man almost the same before the fall as after. And ultimately destroys the message of the Gospel by eliminating the need for Christ. May we understand that we are totally depraved and that God must enable us to work His will and follow Him.

1 The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 9, Paragraph 3
2 Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, Page 490, Paragraph 2

In Christ,
Andrew

More Papers

Hi all,

Here is another paper that I have written. Please Pray for me, I just had 2 wisdom teeth removed yesterday.

Paper Two for Dogmatics, Assessing the Statement
“There is only one God. He is the creator of heaven and earth, and of all living beings. He has revealed Himself to humanity as the Father, in the son, and as the Holy Spirit.”
Andrew Higginbotham

“There is only one God. He is the creator of heaven and earth, and of all living beings. He has revealed Himself to humanity as the Father, in the son, and as the Holy Spirit.” This statement, when one first looks at it, appears to be an okay statement. However, when one digs down and understands what is meant by those who uphold this statement by terms such as “revealed”, “as”, and “in”, one begins to understand that those who would agree with this statement (even after explanation) are actually denying the doctrines of the Trinity and the Personhood of each Member (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) of the Godhead. Of course, almost every heresy that has arisen since Christ’s time begins with a denial of His (Christ’s) full deity. Of course the teaching that God is One and does not have a three-in-oneness has taken on many different forms throughout history. The specific name for this heresy (the one in the afore mentioned statement) is Modalism or Sabellianism. In this paper I will refer to it as Modalism.

The basic premise of Modalism is that God is not really three distinct Persons, but rather one Person that has manifested Himself in three forms throughout history. The proponents of this view hold, to begin with, that God is Spirit (true). Further, they propose that in the Old Testament He revealed or manifested Himself as “the Father” (not completely true). In this form, He created the world, freed the children of Israel from the Egyptians, gave them His law and sent the various prophets and judges in the Old Testament. Then finding Himself inadequate to atone for the sins of His people (the result of being a Spirit), He prepared and indwelt a human body and became Christ Jesus (this is why most proponents of this view only baptize in the name of Jesus). After the resurrection, Jesus then became the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. In this form, He indwells all believers and gives them the “gifts of the Spirit,” i.e. speaking in tongues, etc. The reason for this is that the only major denomination which holds this view is the United Pentecostal Church (UPC). In the end they over-emphasize the doctrine of the oneness of God, and in doing so eliminate the doctrines of the personhood of each of the three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Doing this they destroy the doctrine of the Trinity and ultimately the message, content, and the effect of the atonement of The Son of God, Christ Jesus. Why would anyone want to make a statement which is clearly wrong in the light of Scripture? The reason is, the human mind cannot and never will be able to completely understand the Trinity. We must follow the Bible and it’s teaching on this issue regardless of how rational or understandable it is. After all, the resurrection of Christ is not humanly understandable. So should we throw it out as well? Or explain it away? Clearly not.

In this section, I will discuss two verses of Scripture in particular. They all clearly teach a Trinity. There are many other Scriptures which could be used to prove the personhood of Christ (John 1:1-18 and various passages where Christ is praying to the Father), the personhood of the Holy Ghost (John 14:26), and the Father (1 Cr. 8:6). The first verse which I will deal with in particular is, Matthew 3:16-17 and the second is, Acts 7:55.

In Matthew 3:16-17 we are told, “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” (KJV emphasis mine). These verses show three persons involved with the baptism of Christ, each from a different angle yet at the same time. The Son was being baptized, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Son (two different personalities) and the Father blessed it. Therefore, He is separate from the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is separate from the Father and Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is separate from either of the other two.

The second verse is Acts 7:55, “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” The “He” in this verse is Stephen. He is about to be killed as he looks up, and this verse records what he saw. The scene is instructive for us as we look at the Trinity, we see all three persons of the Trinity at different “places” (although it is true that all three are in a sense omnipresent) at the same time. Thus, the Holy Ghost is on earth (in believers), the Father is in heaven, and the Son is to His right! Here again we see the Trinity clearly laid out, not three manifestations of the same “Spirit” but three persons in One!

The problem is that heretics tend to take orthodox words and pour their meaning into the words. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons do this with many orthodox terms which they twist and change to fit their pozisition. The same is true with the UPC. They will discuss the Father, son and Holy Ghost. However, when they use those terms they do not mean what an orthodox Christian would mean by the same terms (as presented above). When talking to someone it is important to know what they mean by the terms that they are using. This is why these statements on the surface appear to be good but as one begins to define terms and decipher what others mean by what they say, the true meaning will become clear.

Another word that must be addressed is their use of “revealed,” or their use of “manifested”. When used in the context, both of these words that are used in UPC statements, mean that God is One and there is not a Trinity. As we have already seen, this is clearly against Scripture. Both of these words have similar meanings, basically they mean: made known, disclosed, clearly visible. These aspects of these two words point clearly to a wrong view of God. If He had only made known that He is One Person Who is morphing Himself in three different ways, then we must conclude that the aforementioned Scriptures are wrong when they clearly point to three in One.

This heresy has surfaced several times in church history, but always to be condemned as unorthodox and heretical. Let us follow the Lord, the Triune God, and not a god of our making. Ultimately, those who worship and follow the god set forth by the UPC and anyone who would (after explanation) agree with the statement is worshiping another Jesus. One who is not a person of the Godhead, but one who is a manifestation of their god. Let us follow the Father, Son, and Holy Sprit and not a god of our making.

For His glory,
Andrew

CLI Papers

Hi all,



Here is another paper from school. I am out at School lectures this week (I am in a distance learning program at the CLI).



Paper One for Dogmatics, Assessing the Statement
“The Bible contains the Word of God.”
Andrew Higginbotham

The Purpose of this paper is to examine the statement, “The Bible contains the Word of God.” Is it a good theological statement? I would contend that the Bible does not only contain the Word of God. It IS the Word of God. And I believe that makes all the difference. Ultimately, this is a discussion of the inerrancy of Scripture. Is the Bible the inspired, infallible, inerrant, Word of God? Or is it partially the Word of God and partially the word of man?

To begin, the first difference concerns the part of speech the word “contains” is, versus what the word “is” would mean if put in the place of “contains”. Understanding English grammar is important here. The word “contains” in the context of the statement, “The Bible contains the Word of God” is a verb transitive. Meaning that, it shows an action or attribute of the subject (Bible) and carries it to the direct object (Word of God). Conversely, we have the statement, “The Bible is the Word of God.” Here the verb “is” is a Linking verb, which is essentially an equal sign! Meaning that, the subject (Bible) is synonymous with predicate noun (Word of God). That said, what we mean is that, the Bible does not just contain (as an attribute) the Word of God, it is (as in equal to) the Word of God.

Saying that, “the Bible contains the Word of God” rather than “the Bible is the Word of God” denies the inerrancy of Scripture. Verses such as Psalms 12:6-7, Psalms 119:89, Proverbs 30:5, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16, etc., clearly state that the Word of God is settled and fixed. Many (especially Mormons) say something similar to this: “The Bible is true so far as it is correctly translated.” This statement is then twisted and, in actuality, means that where the Bible agrees with their teaching it is true. Rather, the test should be in the other direction (Bible to other sources) as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 directs, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” In addition, verses such as Psalms 119:89 show us that the Bible has been around from the beginning. However, it was only gradually that it was revealed to men as the Spirit gave utterance. And what was revealed at anytime in history is what was sufficient for that time until the fullness of the gospel was revealed.

You may still ask, what is the difference between the two statements? The difference is simple. Looking at the statement “The cup contains ice,” the word “contains” simply means, that the cup has ice in it. Whereas if we were to say, “The cup is ice,” we would mean that there “is” (exists) an ice sculpture of a cup. In the first example, there is more than ice, there is also a cup (which is glass or another substance). Thus you see the ice in the cup is not altogether one substance, but is made up of at least two components: ice and glass. Conversely, the ice sculpture of a cup is ice and that is all that there is. The whole thing is ice even if there are ice cubs inside, it is still all ice. So when we say that “the Bible contains the Word of God,” we imply that there is something other than the actual words of God in the text. However, when we say that “the Bible is the Word of God,” we mean that the whole Book is His words.

Now we apply this to what some believe today. A Mormon or new-age philosopher would agree with the statement, “The Bible contains the Word of God,” because they do believe that at least sections of the Bible are the Word of God.

Let us examine Mormons. A Mormon would contend that there are further additions to the Bible, resulting from new revelations today given to modern prophets and the Book of Mormon. They are heretical because of this teaching which is not consistent with the Bible. Actually, what they are saying is that the cannon of Scripture is not closed. This does not fit with Revelation 22:18-19, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” To summarize, this passage has two meanings (both true): 1. if you add to or take away from Revelation you will be cursed, 2. if you add to or take away from the Bible as a whole, you will also be cursed!

Conversely, a new-age philosopher would believe that sections of the Bible were written by men without direct revelation from God (the Bible was penned by men as God moved them, 2 Peter 1:21). When we understand this, we see that the new-age person is wrong when he says that Scripture was not entirely written at the command and direction of God, thus producing His words through human pens! In other words, what is in the cup is ice, but there are some things in the Bible which are not the Word of God (cup). Understanding this difference is crucial to respond to new-age philosophy.

Conclusively, I believe that we can state that the Word of God is inspired, infallible, and inerrant (2 Timothy 3:16). We have seen that the statement “The Bible contains the Word of God,” is not a good theological statement because it points to a belief that the Word of God is either not complete (Mormon), or that it is not completely inspired by God (new age), and thus being the very Words of God (or a cup of ice). It would be correct to say that “The Bible is the Word of God” because they are His Words (or an ice sculpture of a cup). Finally, “Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD” Psalms 150:6. Let us do this for His wonderful provision for us through giving to us His Words in their entirety. Amen.

Andrew