The Case for Remaking The Encounter
Jul. 16th, 2015 06:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastI referenced this movie in my Evangelizing Advice Tip#3 Evil Jesus*. For those that didn't read it, that tip advises people to look at the actions, attitudes, and statements they attribute to who/what they worship and look at it as though they were by someone else. Check to see if it seems evil when done by someone who isn't assumed to be perfectly good.
At the time, I hadn't actually watched The Encounter for myself. I knew it from a review by an online reviewer/personality, Brother Humble. So, before I expressed my alternative ideas, I wanted to watch this for myself, just in case my impression was off the mark.
I wasn't off the mark. This movie was hard for me to get through precisely because it took the worst of my expectations and went farther with them.
I suppose there is an argument to be made that I'm not the target audience. This is obviously a movie made by conservative evangelical Christians for conservative evangelical Christians, telling its intended audience exactly what they already believe.
I've got three responses.
Firstly, there's a scene in which a woman recounts how she was turned into a Christian by being invited to a public screening of a Christian movie. This is both a message to the already-believers "bring nonbelievers to this movie so they'll convert" and hint as to what's expected of the nonbelievers watching "hint hint, don't you feel you should do something? nudge nudge".
That makes me a part of the target audience and my experience as a nonbeliever, then, is a part of how this movie should be judged.
Secondly, even if I was never considered as a part of the target audience, I shouldn't have to be a conservative evangelical Christian to come away from this movie without the impression that the presented Jesus is evil incarnate.
Finally, Nick. Nick is the only atheist character, a standin for atheists/nonbelievers. And, in Nick, I do not see myself or any atheists I know. I see the prejudices that conservative evangelical Christians have about atheists. I see their bigotry. Being that they're talking about me, I have something to say.
That said, going into the movie, itself. The premise is good. I like the idea. During a storm that makes a road unpassable, five strangers are forced to take refuge in a diner. That diner is owned/run by Jesus Christ. And, the intention of the movie is to present how Jesus relates to different people, including a Christian woman, an abused teenage girl, a married couple facing the end of their marriage, and Nick the atheist.
This has good possibilities for character studies as well as the way different people interact with Christian faith. If only the writers were actually interested in that.
That leads to the first problem with The Encounter, one that can be expressed as an alternate title. Intellectually Shallow Theology: The Movie.
As stated, The Encounter tells conservative evangelical Christians exactly what they believe and without even the slightest challenge to any detail of their faith or to do... well... anything besides be Christian. According to the theology of this movie, the only virtue is being a Christian and nobody else can do anything good.
Because the theology is so intellectually shallow and unchallenged and unthoughtful and so nothing more than comforting to those already comfortable with their beliefs, the natural result is the next problem and the next alternate title. Evil Jesus: The Movie
Aside from the two quotes I included in the tip, Jesus also has a few other whoppers.
"Hank, do you really think that you're going to save, let alone restore your marriage, by putting your wife's wishes above mine? She wants to break up your marriage, Hank. I want to save it."
"Isn't it more important that he loves me than loves you?"
A couple others require more context. When challenged on biblical genocide, he says "Yes, I asked the Israelites to kill the Canaanites." Yeah, the word "asked" does not apply. Commanded and punished when they failed to do so completely, yes. Not "asked".
Where the evil Jesus and the shallow theology both come sharply into focus is in response to the inclusion of the problem of Hell.
"Nick, what would be more unjust and unfair? For me to steal you at the moment of your death and force you to live in my presence and in my will for all eternity? Hell, on the other hand, is a place, Nick, where you'll be completely free of my thou-shalt-nots forever."
Note that this is quickly followed up by all the reasons Hell is eternal torture, which *should* put a highlight that the more just option is to make it so that the alternative to "love", as expressed in obedience without every challenging or questioning the morality of Jesus, isn't absolute and eternal torment.
But, I would have to say the most evil comes in when the teenager, having been abused and even raped, asks where Jesus was.
"I took all of these hard things, Kayla, and used them to turn you into the wonderful young lady you are. So strong and enduring. Such a wonderful role-model for your little sister. But, right now she's... with him."
Him, being a pedophilic stepfather.
So, what we have in that passage is both Jesus telling a teenage girl, one who has been used and abused, that she should, in fact, be grateful for her abuse and Jesus effectively using the little sister for extortion material.
In this same character's conversion, she's asked to forgive those who have wronged her. Of course, she specifies the same stepfather who, to be absolutely clear on the matter, raped her.
The Encounter's conservative evangelical Jesus's response?
"But, Kayla, look what he's done to me."
Now, I have particular views on fogiveness. I see it, generally, as a good thing when done solely of one's free choice. To make forgiveness an obligation, however you phrase it, is not to help a victim, but to take part in their victimization. So, that last bit may only feel extraordinarily evil to me.
But, that said, I have a couple different ideas as to how this may be done better.
A disclaimer: In my effort to make a case for these remakes of The Encounter, I will try to be respectful of Christianity in general and even of Evangelical Christianity in general. I cannot be respectful of the theology presented by The Encounter, because the theology presented is that of a Lovecraftian horror demanding an Orwellian devotion.
That said, it would only take minor changes to make this as beautiful and as moving as it wants to be. So, in my first idea, Jesus (who may or may not expressly identify that he is the Jesus that some of them worship) does not just want people to be Christians and nothing else. In this idea, Jesus has specific things they can do that would follow from a fuller appreciation of their faith or their conversion.
By example, let's take Hank and Catherine, the married couple. Hank wants to stay married, but Catherine feels an identity crisis in which she cannot be herself, but can only be Hank's wife. Instead of telling Hank to deprioritize Catherine's desires, how about something like the following...
Jesus: Hank, one of the things in the bible that I know you've read is that I told people that how you treat each other, down to the least of everybody, is how you treat me. If I told you that I wasn't able to relate to you as myself and that this was hurting me, would you deny any wrong and refuse to listen as I tried to explain?
Hank: Well, of course not, Jesus. I love you.
Jesus: But, you have been. When she told you that she couldn't be herself while married to you, you were more interested in you not having done wrong than in her pain. And, Hank, you were doing that to me, too.
Hank: I'm... I'm sorry, Jesus.
Jesus: Don't just say you're sorry to me when I have power. Go say your sorry to someone who needs power.
Hank nods and gets up to go talk to Catherine.
And, rather than just having everybody together by coincidence, or for no better reason than to use them as examples for each other, he could easily have a specific plan for all of them together, one in which they are moved by their faith (or by their common compassion) to do something good together.
Kayla is an abused teenage girl, but one who could use her experiences to do some good for herself and for others. But, instead of making excuses and even presenting the horrors she experienced as though she should be grateful, he could do something else, something that is far more in keeping with real humility.
Jesus: Kayla... I'm sorry. This is not a perfect world and what I can do without taking away people's free will is limited. That means that I could not give you the protection and the peace and the comfort and the security that you deserved just for being.
Jesus: But, if you believe in me, in love, in hope, in a possibility, that faith can help you take these... horrible things that happened to you and use them to do good. I didn't just bring you all here so you could just join a tribe called Christianity. Your example, your knowledge, your experience can be used to investigate others, find others who need help and help them.
Jesus: Nick has the money and, though he doesn't believe in me, he has a compassion. Hank can inspect houses and repair them. Catherine has a capacity to communicate. Melissa has a drive. And, you, you have a strength and experience to become the tip of a spear that takes their abilities and focuses them on doing good.
This option would neatly unite all of the characters' stories. It would make Jesus into someone who is truly compassionate, rather than someone that, as it seems to me in the movie that we have, desperately wants to sound compassionate by affecting the right facial ques and a soft voice.
In my other idea, we can use the Jesus presented. Instead of having a named and atheistic challenger, have the challenger be unnamed. Don't highlight any mystery about this challenger. Or, if that mystery has to be highlighted, have this challenger in darkness, make him look and sound foreign in ways that the intended audience may find frightening.
But, instead of simply replaying conversations between Christians and atheists as expected by conservative evangelical Christians, have him put the arguments to better challenge. Have him call out the evils of this Jesus.
For instance, let's take a response to that defense of Hell from earlier. The shadowy, figure could put that in different terms.
Unnamed: Let's imagine that a king says to a peasant "you do not wish to clean my toilets, do you? So, which would be more unjust and unfair? For me to steal you away from your home to force you to clean my toilets or to, in keeping with your free will, slowly bleed you into a bowl, so that you never die of blood loss, then waterboard you with your own blood for a year?"
Unnamed: Tell me, does that really make the King good? Or is the King merely attempting to divert attention from his own agency in his own actions?
In this case, the conservative evangelical Christians would not be so very comforted in their already comfortable beliefs. But, then again, Christ was about comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, not the other way around.
It would all end with a final speech by the unnamed.
Unnamed: They've all been pleased to meet you, one who calls himself Jesus. But, I think some have guessed your name. There was confusion, but they may understand the nature of your game.
Unnamed: You would have them believe that Christian faith is expressed by nothing more than membership in a Tribe, that love involves no challenge of what they already believe is right, and that it is good and acceptable to think of others as deserving eternal and absolute torment.
Unnamed: Guessed your name and understood your game. Get thee behind me.
Either of these ideas would present something better. The first would represent something closer to the idealized Christianity, one that is very simple but leads from Jesus to doing good. The second, I think, would more closely match much of the Christian experience as I understand it, whereby the challenge, often ignored, is to actually test everything in the faith and hold just to what is good.
* http://wingedbeast.dreamwidth.org/5403.html
At the time, I hadn't actually watched The Encounter for myself. I knew it from a review by an online reviewer/personality, Brother Humble. So, before I expressed my alternative ideas, I wanted to watch this for myself, just in case my impression was off the mark.
I wasn't off the mark. This movie was hard for me to get through precisely because it took the worst of my expectations and went farther with them.
I suppose there is an argument to be made that I'm not the target audience. This is obviously a movie made by conservative evangelical Christians for conservative evangelical Christians, telling its intended audience exactly what they already believe.
I've got three responses.
Firstly, there's a scene in which a woman recounts how she was turned into a Christian by being invited to a public screening of a Christian movie. This is both a message to the already-believers "bring nonbelievers to this movie so they'll convert" and hint as to what's expected of the nonbelievers watching "hint hint, don't you feel you should do something? nudge nudge".
That makes me a part of the target audience and my experience as a nonbeliever, then, is a part of how this movie should be judged.
Secondly, even if I was never considered as a part of the target audience, I shouldn't have to be a conservative evangelical Christian to come away from this movie without the impression that the presented Jesus is evil incarnate.
Finally, Nick. Nick is the only atheist character, a standin for atheists/nonbelievers. And, in Nick, I do not see myself or any atheists I know. I see the prejudices that conservative evangelical Christians have about atheists. I see their bigotry. Being that they're talking about me, I have something to say.
That said, going into the movie, itself. The premise is good. I like the idea. During a storm that makes a road unpassable, five strangers are forced to take refuge in a diner. That diner is owned/run by Jesus Christ. And, the intention of the movie is to present how Jesus relates to different people, including a Christian woman, an abused teenage girl, a married couple facing the end of their marriage, and Nick the atheist.
This has good possibilities for character studies as well as the way different people interact with Christian faith. If only the writers were actually interested in that.
That leads to the first problem with The Encounter, one that can be expressed as an alternate title. Intellectually Shallow Theology: The Movie.
As stated, The Encounter tells conservative evangelical Christians exactly what they believe and without even the slightest challenge to any detail of their faith or to do... well... anything besides be Christian. According to the theology of this movie, the only virtue is being a Christian and nobody else can do anything good.
Because the theology is so intellectually shallow and unchallenged and unthoughtful and so nothing more than comforting to those already comfortable with their beliefs, the natural result is the next problem and the next alternate title. Evil Jesus: The Movie
Aside from the two quotes I included in the tip, Jesus also has a few other whoppers.
"Hank, do you really think that you're going to save, let alone restore your marriage, by putting your wife's wishes above mine? She wants to break up your marriage, Hank. I want to save it."
"Isn't it more important that he loves me than loves you?"
A couple others require more context. When challenged on biblical genocide, he says "Yes, I asked the Israelites to kill the Canaanites." Yeah, the word "asked" does not apply. Commanded and punished when they failed to do so completely, yes. Not "asked".
Where the evil Jesus and the shallow theology both come sharply into focus is in response to the inclusion of the problem of Hell.
"Nick, what would be more unjust and unfair? For me to steal you at the moment of your death and force you to live in my presence and in my will for all eternity? Hell, on the other hand, is a place, Nick, where you'll be completely free of my thou-shalt-nots forever."
Note that this is quickly followed up by all the reasons Hell is eternal torture, which *should* put a highlight that the more just option is to make it so that the alternative to "love", as expressed in obedience without every challenging or questioning the morality of Jesus, isn't absolute and eternal torment.
But, I would have to say the most evil comes in when the teenager, having been abused and even raped, asks where Jesus was.
"I took all of these hard things, Kayla, and used them to turn you into the wonderful young lady you are. So strong and enduring. Such a wonderful role-model for your little sister. But, right now she's... with him."
Him, being a pedophilic stepfather.
So, what we have in that passage is both Jesus telling a teenage girl, one who has been used and abused, that she should, in fact, be grateful for her abuse and Jesus effectively using the little sister for extortion material.
In this same character's conversion, she's asked to forgive those who have wronged her. Of course, she specifies the same stepfather who, to be absolutely clear on the matter, raped her.
The Encounter's conservative evangelical Jesus's response?
"But, Kayla, look what he's done to me."
Now, I have particular views on fogiveness. I see it, generally, as a good thing when done solely of one's free choice. To make forgiveness an obligation, however you phrase it, is not to help a victim, but to take part in their victimization. So, that last bit may only feel extraordinarily evil to me.
But, that said, I have a couple different ideas as to how this may be done better.
A disclaimer: In my effort to make a case for these remakes of The Encounter, I will try to be respectful of Christianity in general and even of Evangelical Christianity in general. I cannot be respectful of the theology presented by The Encounter, because the theology presented is that of a Lovecraftian horror demanding an Orwellian devotion.
That said, it would only take minor changes to make this as beautiful and as moving as it wants to be. So, in my first idea, Jesus (who may or may not expressly identify that he is the Jesus that some of them worship) does not just want people to be Christians and nothing else. In this idea, Jesus has specific things they can do that would follow from a fuller appreciation of their faith or their conversion.
By example, let's take Hank and Catherine, the married couple. Hank wants to stay married, but Catherine feels an identity crisis in which she cannot be herself, but can only be Hank's wife. Instead of telling Hank to deprioritize Catherine's desires, how about something like the following...
Jesus: Hank, one of the things in the bible that I know you've read is that I told people that how you treat each other, down to the least of everybody, is how you treat me. If I told you that I wasn't able to relate to you as myself and that this was hurting me, would you deny any wrong and refuse to listen as I tried to explain?
Hank: Well, of course not, Jesus. I love you.
Jesus: But, you have been. When she told you that she couldn't be herself while married to you, you were more interested in you not having done wrong than in her pain. And, Hank, you were doing that to me, too.
Hank: I'm... I'm sorry, Jesus.
Jesus: Don't just say you're sorry to me when I have power. Go say your sorry to someone who needs power.
Hank nods and gets up to go talk to Catherine.
And, rather than just having everybody together by coincidence, or for no better reason than to use them as examples for each other, he could easily have a specific plan for all of them together, one in which they are moved by their faith (or by their common compassion) to do something good together.
Kayla is an abused teenage girl, but one who could use her experiences to do some good for herself and for others. But, instead of making excuses and even presenting the horrors she experienced as though she should be grateful, he could do something else, something that is far more in keeping with real humility.
Jesus: Kayla... I'm sorry. This is not a perfect world and what I can do without taking away people's free will is limited. That means that I could not give you the protection and the peace and the comfort and the security that you deserved just for being.
Jesus: But, if you believe in me, in love, in hope, in a possibility, that faith can help you take these... horrible things that happened to you and use them to do good. I didn't just bring you all here so you could just join a tribe called Christianity. Your example, your knowledge, your experience can be used to investigate others, find others who need help and help them.
Jesus: Nick has the money and, though he doesn't believe in me, he has a compassion. Hank can inspect houses and repair them. Catherine has a capacity to communicate. Melissa has a drive. And, you, you have a strength and experience to become the tip of a spear that takes their abilities and focuses them on doing good.
This option would neatly unite all of the characters' stories. It would make Jesus into someone who is truly compassionate, rather than someone that, as it seems to me in the movie that we have, desperately wants to sound compassionate by affecting the right facial ques and a soft voice.
In my other idea, we can use the Jesus presented. Instead of having a named and atheistic challenger, have the challenger be unnamed. Don't highlight any mystery about this challenger. Or, if that mystery has to be highlighted, have this challenger in darkness, make him look and sound foreign in ways that the intended audience may find frightening.
But, instead of simply replaying conversations between Christians and atheists as expected by conservative evangelical Christians, have him put the arguments to better challenge. Have him call out the evils of this Jesus.
For instance, let's take a response to that defense of Hell from earlier. The shadowy, figure could put that in different terms.
Unnamed: Let's imagine that a king says to a peasant "you do not wish to clean my toilets, do you? So, which would be more unjust and unfair? For me to steal you away from your home to force you to clean my toilets or to, in keeping with your free will, slowly bleed you into a bowl, so that you never die of blood loss, then waterboard you with your own blood for a year?"
Unnamed: Tell me, does that really make the King good? Or is the King merely attempting to divert attention from his own agency in his own actions?
In this case, the conservative evangelical Christians would not be so very comforted in their already comfortable beliefs. But, then again, Christ was about comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, not the other way around.
It would all end with a final speech by the unnamed.
Unnamed: They've all been pleased to meet you, one who calls himself Jesus. But, I think some have guessed your name. There was confusion, but they may understand the nature of your game.
Unnamed: You would have them believe that Christian faith is expressed by nothing more than membership in a Tribe, that love involves no challenge of what they already believe is right, and that it is good and acceptable to think of others as deserving eternal and absolute torment.
Unnamed: Guessed your name and understood your game. Get thee behind me.
Either of these ideas would present something better. The first would represent something closer to the idealized Christianity, one that is very simple but leads from Jesus to doing good. The second, I think, would more closely match much of the Christian experience as I understand it, whereby the challenge, often ignored, is to actually test everything in the faith and hold just to what is good.
* http://wingedbeast.dreamwidth.org/5403.html
