‘God’s Not Dead’ in 13 Quick Points.



Several friends have recommended I watch God’s Not Dead (GND), and since the follow up recently released here at cinemas in South Africa, I thought I would get up to date. After watching the film I have been left with incredibly mixed feelings, of which we shall illumine here.

1. The Good Side.

a. The obvious positive is that the film stands up for the Christian faith. This, I believe (as an apologist), is a necessity in a culture where so many diverse, conflicting worldviews battle for supremacy. This fact would surely be one key variable as to why the film has proven to be quite a success. For example, it earned $60.8 million from 780 theatres with only a budget of $2 million. Pure Flix Entertainment clearly made ends meet, as Adam Markovitz of Entertainment Weekly said that it was ”the biggest surprise of the weekend” (1).

b. The film very importantly focuses on life’s most important question, that of God’s existence. So much rides on God’s existence. Meaning, purpose, moral realism, rationality and a host of other significant existential questions are ultimately decided on whether or not God exists. Even Richard Dawkins saw this when he penned that “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer” (2). But what about the Christian religion? It is undoubtedly the case that if Christianity is true then there are eternal considerations. Eternity is a very long time. It is also a “time” (or existence rather), given Christian theism’s truth, that one will either live separated from God or be within his presence forever. These are important considerations for once one’s decision has been made there’s no going back. No-one could deny that these are important questions.

c. I think that the acting was relatively decent. I didn’t feel that it was too wooden, bad or weird. There are periods where the scenes themselves seem incredibly set up (we will touch on this below) but the acting itself was passable. I also tended to like the general scenery and settings. I think that the college environment was well articulated, even though it was home to some clearly put on, unrealistic scenes.

d. I would argue that the film well captures fundamentalist atheism; it just obviously misplaces it (more on this below). Professor of Philosophy Jeffery Raddison, an obnoxious anti-theist of whom is the films antagonist, claims that God is just a “big man in the sky,” that he is “dead,” a “myth” and a malevolent “celestial dictator.” These are quips that are commonly espoused by fundamentalist internet atheists as well as in several well-known New Atheist books. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens would clearly come to mind. The point being is that the film captures the common quips and propaganda so widely spread within atheists camps.

e. Ultimately the film has a powerful story, or at least it tries to have one. Obviously it centers on God’s existence but it also includes the themes of human vulnerability, terminal illness (cancer), tragic accidents and death. These are powerful aspects to the human experience. The film clearly tries to implement these in order to manufacture a powerful narrative. Finally it seems, on its surface, to get the Christian message right. It highlights the temporal nature of the world and the materials that are within it. These would include the highly sought after and seductive things such as fame, money, and success. The film emphasizes that these are temporary but “Jesus… that’s eternal” (to quote Willie). The film likewise touches on Christian humility especially through Pastor David.


Jeffery Raddison indoctrinating his philosophy class.

f. GND does touch on the fact that atheism is quite pertinent in philosophy and thus has influence. Some 72.8% of philosophers are atheists with a sizeable 49.8 of them being naturalists (9). As a Christian I love engaging philosophy but whenever I visit the philosophy section at the local bookstore atheists are everywhere (on the shelf, that is). For example, on a recent visit one could see The Age of Nothing (Peter Watson), The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins), The Moral Landscape (Sam Harris), God’s Not Great (Christopher Hitchens), and others. How any of these “philosophers” are actually philosophers is quite beyond me (I am not so sure about Watson though). One shouldn’t really be too worried after all this same bookstore has put Deepak Chopra in the Christian section… That’s like putting a baseball book in the teenage-fiction category as a best seller. However, the point being is that it seems the producers of GND wanted to engage an academic discipline where atheists are clearly most prevalent. If that was the goal then they at least got that right by choosing philosophy. Philosophy is clearly a better choice over biology (41% atheist), chemistry (26.6%), or psychology (33%).

g. The film gives an introduction to some solid theistic arguments. However, this also counts as a let down, at least for me who has interacted with these arguments (we will touch on this below). But for a general introduction to whet the appetite I think that the film demonstrates that reason and rationality can and does exist behind belief in God.

2. General Reception.

Other than achieving a 4.5/5 on Amazon the reception has been poor. Todd Van Der Werff, in one if his pieces, writes that “Even by the rather lax standards of the Christian film industry, God’s Not Dead is a disaster. It’s an uninspired amble past a variety of Christian-email-forward bogeymen that feels far too long at just 113 minutes” (3). I think that Todd is being a little bit unfair as I don’t think The Passion of the Christ, or Miracles from Heaven, or several other Christian industry based films, can be simply called “lax.” Reviewer Scott Foundas of Variety writes that “even grading on a generous curve, this strident melodrama about the insidious efforts of America’s university system to silence true believers on campus is about as subtle as a stack of Bibles falling on your head….” (4). Steve Pulaski, of Influx Magazine, is somewhat more generous writing that “God’s Not Dead has issues, many of them easy to spot and heavily distracting. However, it’s surprisingly effective in terms of message, acting, and insight, which are three fields Christian cinema seems to struggle with the most” (5). Alternatively many Christian leaders recommend the film. The Alliance Defending Freedom, for instance, endorses GND, “I believe Christians should go see this movie because it will strengthen their faith and help them question situations about how they stood up or backed down for their faith. It will also encourage them to share their faith more” (6). Another commentator believes that GND is ”a tremendously entertaining film that leads to God, not in addition to its quality but through its quality” (7),

3. My Critiques.

a. An obvious critique is the clear generalizations and stereotypes. I would argue that there is some truth to these stereotypes as a stereotype is not necessarily a false view. Stereotypes are generally just easier to “box” and categorize certain people, races and cultures within our minds. For example, the only Chinese people in the film are Martin, a student, and his businessman dad back in China. However, the Chinese do, in general, tend to be more serious than other cultures and the film plays on this. Martin evidently never smiles once prior to his conversion to Christianity. He is also always contemplative, undecided, and cold. There are obvious connections with Martin’s place in the film and the real persecution of Christianity back in China. Consider, the two main black people in the film. One is pastor David’s friend, and reverend, Benjamin Oyango. The other is a randomly introduced student in the philosophy introductory class. What’s the student’s name? It’s “G Dog.” And that about sums up the depth of his character. Oyango seems to enjoy more character development, film time and is generally warm, welcoming, and understanding. Then there are the Muslims. There is Misrab, the father of college daughter Ayisha of whom also has a smaller brother. Point being is that these Muslims are presented as getting around in an old, aged Toyota, and the dad is presented as being very oppressive. He forces Ayisha to wear a burka wherever she goes, this is because, according Ayisha, her “father he is very traditional.” Ayisha is, however, secretly a Christian. One day her brother discovers this (he walks into her room uninvited and sees a Christian sermon on her phone) and subsequently informs the father, Misrab. Misrab is outraged, strikes Ayisha, and kicks her out the house. This is not an unrealistic picture. This happens. In fact, in Islamic theocracies such as Syria and Afghanistan these, and worse, things happen to many, many people who do not submit to Allah’s will and to the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings. However, it would be amiss to associate such behaviour with all Muslims, which is a view that the film seems to support.


This Martin guy literally has no character.

Then there’s the reporter Amy Ryan and her wealthy businessman boyfriend. Both are literally cut from cardboard boxes. Amy always seems to be busy and is also, in one scene, paranoid about some Christians poaching ducks, of all animals. Her boyfriend, on the other hand, is a full asshole. The boyfriend has an elderly mother who is suffering from amnesia and he is incredibly indignant towards her. Almost as if everything is the mother’s fault. All he cares about his making money and being wealthy (as if this is a representation of all business people). Even worse is when he finds out that Amy has cancer he drops her then and there pretty much over a restaurant dinner table. The point being is that none of this comes across as very realistic at all. It appears far more put on than anything else. It is likewise not difficult to spot the symbolism. Amy, as a reporter represents the media, who are thought to be biased against Christianity while living life without God, as her boyfriend does, leads to greed, nastiness and all bad things. The Christian victim mentality is everywhere.

And then there are the poor atheists. Professor Jeffery Raddison is presented as a bigoted atheist who forces his ideology on his philosophy students. Raddison has college friends who are likewise professors. All of them view religious belief as ridiculous and they always nod their heads in agreement with whatever Raddison says. How does the film clothe Raddison’s character? That’s easy to answer. He’s essentially a bully, incredibly arrogant, sarcastic, controlling, and a sore loser. Even worse, the film producers thought that it would also be a good idea to have him dating one of his students, Mina. This is literally how the film represents atheists. This is hardly a realistic picture of atheists. Not every atheist is a Richard Dawkins (and not even he has ever dated one of his students).


Raddison accosts Wheaton in the hallway after he challenges Wheaton to a debate. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Moreover, and very unsurprisingly, Christians enjoy a good representation. Wheaton is a decent looking and obviously brave person for standing up to his professor. Pastor David and reverend Oyango are always humble, jovial, and peaceful. Mina, also a Christian, is the girlfriend of the bigoted professor Raddison. She likewise stands up for her faith which is met with condemnation by Raddison and his little group of nodding friends. Very little, if anything, from the Christian camp is presented in a negative light. However, everyone else (from Chinese people to businessmen) receives the rear end of the stick. Evangelical Christian Michael Gerson, was right in saying that “The main problem with God’s Not Dead is not its cosmology or ethics but its anthropology. It assumes that human beings are made out of cardboard. Academics are arrogant and cruel. Liberal bloggers are preening and snarky. Unbelievers disbelieve because of personal demons. It is characterization by caricature” (8)

b. The film is profoundly unrealistic and obviously depicts a false portrayal of reality. Yes, many Christians lose their faith in college (particularly because they’ve never actually known the evidence for their beliefs) and yes, some professors have an agenda against Christianity. However, it is incredibly unlikely that we will ever come across a professor of the likes of Jeffery Raddison. There might be an exception but it is incredibly unlikely. A professor may have a bias and this may come through in his teaching, but no professor would ever walk into a class, introduce himself as an atheist, and get everyone in the class to sign a piece of paper with the words “God is dead” on them. In what world would an entire class (50+ students) ever do this? Most of the class would be religiously orientated in some way whether that be Christian, perhaps agnostic, Muslim, Jew etc. Atheism, on the other hand, is still a small, but growing, minority of college students. I’ve been to two universities myself and today I can only recall three atheists with one of them being a lecturer and the other two students. Yet I found that there were many spiritualists, New Agers, Christians, and Muslims. Colleges and universities have a big religious representation, but clearly not in the universe of GND. Apparently everyone in GND feels contented and obliged to sign a piece of paper saying God is dead. In reality that would be a one way ticket to getting fired.

Following this Raddison presents several names of scholars on a white board to the class. All of those names are, or were, atheists, and even Dawkins is on there… This doesn’t make sense. Why is Dawkins mentioned in a philosophy class? He was a biologist. Is Raddison that incompetent (at least that’s what the film wants you to believe)? It would be like a Christian professor of science being so blinded by his faith that he begins introducing several names of theistic scientists and then on top throwing in Ken Ham for good measure. Yet, somewhat charitably, the rest of the names Raddison presents are familiar philosophers of the likes Camus, Nietzsche, Russell etc. Secondly, this is odd because philosophy isn’t about atheism, although a part of it would include going through philosophers, past and present, who do hold to such a viewpoint. If Raddison is really a professor of philosophy then that would entail him having a PhD and many years of experience. If anything the way he is presented is like an immature internet atheist and certainly no professor, whether an atheist or not. This is incredibly detached from reality and contrary to my own, and other peoples’, experience.

c. There is also just a bad take on atheists when it comes to debates. Yes, many atheists, like many theists, really do seem to be naïve when it comes to religious-atheism discussions and questions. But many aren’t, at least in my experience. Raddison is depicted as hardly being a competent atheist. Wheaton presents a persuasive argument from cosmology (more on the arguments in a bit) to the class. What is Raddison’s reply? A mere, roundly criticized, quote from Stephen Hawking. That’s not an argument. Moreover, Raddison repeatedly condemns and undermines Wheaton’s arguments because he is just a “freshman,” as if that remotely counts as an argument. We also find that behind Raddison’s façade of rationality is an intense distaste for God because his mother died from cancer when he was just 12. In my mind I can picture atheists squirming in their seats or turning over in their graves at such a representation. Yet to give credit where it is due this is not incorrect. Many atheists have an intense hate for God which is guarded by a smokescreen of rationality. I know this because I have experience dealing with them. But again it is wholly amiss to suspect that atheists are all like this, which is the impression that the film seems to give.


The moment where Wheaton exposes Raddison for hating God, because God allowed his mother to die from cancer when he was 12.

d. As far as I remember there are two (?) arguments presented in this film. One is the cosmological argument from the Big Bang, and the other being morality. My point being is that neither of these two arguments are presented via any deductive means, as say through the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the argument from Objective Moral Values and Duties. But this is hardly a treatment at all. The moral argument is a half-baked retort to Raddison (it does expose issues that atheists do have given their worldview) that is underdeveloped. The most we see is Wheaton’s argument from Big Bang cosmology (a sound argument but one that isn’t given justice in the film). However, this neglects several other arguments from Fine-Tuning, the Ontological Argument, from Jesus’ resurrection (odd since this film intends to promote a Christian agenda), and dozens more. The film, to do justice, should have at least tried to go for two or three solid theistic arguments. But it doesn’t.

c. The film is not really meant to be funny but it actually is on occasion. The film is evidently dealing with a serious subject and not trying to orientate itself in the direction of comedy. However, I couldn’t help but chuckle at one scene where Raddison accosts Wheaton outside class. Raddison, in much self-righteousness, says “I want to make things clear – in that classroom there is a god… I’m him. I am also a jealous god so do not try to humiliate me in front of my students.” This clearly attempts to caste atheists in the light of pompous pride. It also gives the impression that if one is an atheist that this is where they will end up. An arrogant, insecure, bigoted bully. Yes, we have a Richard Dawkins, but not all atheists are a Richard Dawkins.

Consider another scene where Ayisha is covering her head with a burka just prior to her dad picking her up. Essentially when her dad drives out of sight, after having dropped her at college, she takes the burka off for the day until the dad returns. In this scene, as she is putting it on, a fellow (and totally random out of the blue) student walks up to her and says, “you’re beautiful… I wish you didn’t have to do that.” Again, this was clearly just another one of several set-up scenes. This was so obvious I had to chuckle, and this is quite odd since it is a subject I don’t find very funny. I think it is quite disgraceful that Islam forces women to have to cover up in such a way. However, the film is trying to be serious and in doing so comes over comical. It fails spectacularly in this regard.

d. GND also seems to force in divine intervention. The film is about God, but it being about God doesn’t have to make it a film like Miracles from Heaven (the really inspiring true story about how God dramatically miraculously heals a girl). But GND tries to fit this same formula in some way or another. For example, it doesn’t happen through a dramatic healing but in the form of a car. Basically Pastor David and reverend Oyango want to go across country for some reason. However, the scene outside the church unfolds where we have David trying to start his car which won’t start no matter what he tries to do. David then calls a car rental agency to provide him with a new vehicle. The rental is delivered right to him in perfect working condition. Again David tries starting the engine but the same thing happens. The rental man takes the car back and replaces with another one. Same story, it won’t start. Obviously, as the film makes abundantly clear, (so that even blind people could spot it) God doesn’t want him and reverend Oyango to go anywhere. At this point viewers don’t know why this is the case until the film draws to an end. Basically, Raddison gets knocked over by a car while crossing the road. This accident occurs at the very same intersection that David and Oyango are at. Seeing this David runs over to the dying Raddison. And in a very cheesy way, and in an onslaught of rain, Raddison renounces his atheism and accepts Jesus as saviour (talk about a death bed conversion). This is just so badly done and ineptly planned that even I, as a Christian, couldn’t help but role my eyes. Again, conversion is something I take very seriously, instead the film made me laugh.


I think that everyone ultimately needs to be their own judge when it comes to GND. As I presented, I think there are some good points and bad points. However, it clearly feels that the scales are tipped in the direction of the bad points, which is unfortunate because the film had a very powerful, pertinent  story behind it. However, for all to see the story was implemented rather disastrously through situations that would seldom, if ever, be experienced. The characters are also has hollow as clay pots and they’re clearly grossly generalized. The film is just entirely detached from reality in so many scenes and in so many ways that it is hard to take it seriously. Certain in film commentaries on the subjugation of women in Islam, and people’s means of salvation in Christianity, had me rolling my eyes and/or chuckling instead of me feeling moved in any way. The scenes were just so obviously put on they evoked a response that they didn’t wish to evoke.

However, I suspect that many will critique this film without realizing that it does have merit when it comes to presenting at least one, arguably two, arguments for God. These arguments are solid and persuasive, and I thus urge readers to consider them. Clearly GND is not the appropriate medium for that, but that doesn’t mean other mediums don’t exist.


1. Markovitz, A. 2014. Box office report: ‘Divergent’ heads straight for $56 million win; ‘God’s Not Dead’ inspires $8.6 million. Available.

2. Richard Dawkins quoted by Van Biema in God vs. Science (2006). Available.

3. VanDerWerff, T. 2014. God’s Not Dead is a mess even by Christian film standards. Available.

4. Foundas, S. 2014. Film Review: ‘God’s Not Dead’. Available.

5. Pulaski, S. God’s Not Dead (Review) Available.

6. Herd, A. 2014. Why the Movie “God’s Not Dead” was Made, and Why It’s Important to See It: ADF Exclusive Interview with Director Russell Wolfe. Available.

7. Olszyk, N. 2014. “Crash” Meets “Mere Christianity.” Available.

8. Gerson, M. 2014. Michael Gerson: ‘Noah,’ ‘God’s Not Dead’ are movies lacking grace. Available.

9. Bourget, D. & Chalmers, D. 2013. What Do Philosophers Believe? Available.

7 responses to “‘God’s Not Dead’ in 13 Quick Points.

  1. Hello James,
    Since you have asked “let me know you thoughts” at the end of this post, I thought that I would share mine.

    Some people may choose to laugh at the title of the movie. They think that “God’s Not Dead” is a belief in fairy tales. They laugh at us because they see Christians as ignorant, unknowledgeable buffoons, unscientific, brain-dead…you get the picture. On the other hand, those who claim (and conclusively believe) that “God is dead” are so arrogant to say such a thing! They are the ones who deserve to be laughed at for their obvious ignorance of God’s Word, their incessant rebellion against truth, justice, and morality; as well as their mindset that they absolutely and intentionally refuse to see their need for forgiveness for their sins through repentance at the foot of Christ’s cross.

    This movie presents examples of what is stated in Psalms:

    Psa 37:12
    The wicked plots against the just,
    And gnashes at him with his teeth.

    Psa 37:13
    The Lord laughs at him,
    For He sees that his day is coming.

    I agreed with, and enjoyed reading what you wrote in your “good points.” However, many of the criticisms (which you are certainly entitled to believe and share) were not my feelings about the film. In the case of Raddison being “angry with God” because of the death of his mother at a young age, I can say that I know of people who once claimed that they “used to be Christian…now they are not” because of tragedies they had endured in their lives. Whether or not they were genuinely born again in Christ is between them and God, but typically those who know Christ (or once accepted Him) can, in near death instances, turn to Christ at the last minute and repent of their sins. My own father did just that several months before his death.

    You did far more research regarding other reviews and opinions of the movie, but I only looked up two examples to use in my blog post about the film – one was positive and the other negative. Here is a copy of my post after seeing the movie for a second time. If you click on the link to my blog, then you can read the links that I placed within the post.

    Talk Wisdom: Remaining Obedient to God

    I watched the first movie, “God’s Not Dead” again last evening. I thought it was a good film even though many non-Christian reviews were negative. [See Wikipedia and scroll down to “critical reception” for examples.]

    Plugged In had a good review of the film.

    It was interesting to me to read Wikipedia’s opinion about the visit and verbal exchange of a son (Mark) in the movie (who previously refused to visit his mom who suffers from dementia) versus what is written over at Plugged In.


    Mark at last visits his mother, only to taunt her; she responds that all of his financial success was given to him by Satan to keep him from turning to God.

    Plugged In:

    Mina’s dementia-afflicted mother serves to stimulate thought about how serving God doesn’t always iron out all of life’s wrinkles.

    “You prayed and believed your whole life,” Mina’s brother says to their mother, almost as an accusation. “Never done anything wrong. And here you are. You’re the nicest person I know. I am the meanest. You have dementia. My life is perfect. Explain that to me!” Then, in a moment of unexpected spiritual clarity, she does. “Sometimes the devil allows people to live a life free of trouble because he doesn’t want them turning to God,” she tells her shocked son. “Their sin is like a jail cell, except it is all nice and comfy and there doesn’t seem to be any reason to leave. The door’s wide open. Till one day, time runs out, and the cell door slams shut, and suddenly it’s too late.”

    Indeed, in the face of difficulty, we hear a lot about God always being good, and having a plan for our lives.

    It is interesting to note that after saying such a coherent message, the mom goes back to her dementia-induced state, turns towards her son and asks, “who did you say that you were?”

    In contrast to the accusation-filled son Mark, whenever the daughter (a Christian named Mina) visited her mom, she patiently told her (as often as necessary) that she is her daughter.

    At the end of the film, Mark (son of the mom with dementia) acts as arrogantly and detached as ever from what his mother warned him about being in the state of “their [his] sin is like a jail cell.”

    The man obviously rejected the warning, but the Bible tells each of us that “your sin will find you out.”

    Num 32:23

    “But if you do not do so, then take note, you have sinned against the LORD; and be sure your sin will find you out.

    In Matthew 4 (just after Jesus was tempted by satan for 40 days and nights in the wilderness) we find:

    Mat 4:12

    Now when Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, He departed to Galilee.

    Mat 4:13

    And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali,

    Mat 4:14

    that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:

    Mat 4:15

    “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
    By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
    Galilee of the Gentiles:

    Mat 4:16

    The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light,
    And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death
    Light has dawned.”[fn]

    Mat 4:17

    From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

    Since satan had the gall to tempt Jesus, the Son of God, he certainly will tempt any and all of us! However, as we see in the case of Mark in the movie, living a life of ease (yet separated from God for all eternity) still fulfills satan’s goal of taking unrepentant souls to hell with him.

    Plugged In’s review is more in line with what Jesus tells us in Scripture.

    Jhn 16:33

    “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will[fn] have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

    [Added here: The examples of the Muslim girl being sent away when her Sharia law father found out she was a secret Christian is an example of tribulation because of rejection of Islam and her sincere belief in Christ. The same could be said of the Chinese student whose father was obviously an atheist who wanted his son to reject God as well. Jesus told us that belief in him would often divide believing vs. unbelieving family members:

    Mar 10:29
    So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[fn] or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s,

    Mar 10:30
    “who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life.

    Mat 12:48
    But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”

    Mat 12:49
    And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers!

    Mat 12:50
    “For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

    Speaking of experiencing tribulation in this world, God’s Not Dead 2 came out in April, 2016. I haven’t seen it yet but a blog I ran across describes a real life example of a situation that is depicted in the film.

    God’s Not Dead blog: When God’s Not Dead 2 Plays Out As YOUR Story!

    What is God’s purpose to allow us to go through tribulation (in whatever form it may arise) in this fallen world?

    I think this paragraph explains it:

    News of our legal case reached people all over the world, and some of them contacted me to encourage me and show their support. It’s amazing how God took a simple decision to remain obedient in my freshman year and turned it into a tool that reached the ears of thousands with the name of Jesus.

    Remaining obedient often pits Christian believers against the secular worldviews that would have us shut up, sit down, and accept the immoral deluge that is afflicting our free speech, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, freedom of outwardly professing our faith, and freedom FROM having immorality forced upon our families.

    I applaud individuals like Chase Windebank, who didn’t know what the ultimate outcome would be, yet pressed on about what he knew God would have wanted him to do. Stand up for his faith in Jesus Christ!

    Chase concludes his post:

    It took nearly eight months for my case to come to a close. The outcome? A victory on the side of free speech! Now, if any other public school student is refused the right to pray during their free time at school, they can use my case as an example to aid in their own victory.

    God was faithful to sustain me, and all of those rich memories came flooding back as I watched GOD’S NOT DEAD 2. Even though I am now far removed from it all, it felt so real and present. There were times I literally stood up and jumped in excitement for the case being made on behalf of Ms. Wesley.

    The thought and scholarly guidance that this movie undertook in order to depict the truth of what our nation is dealing with was phenomenal. Remember with me, for this is the foundation upon which our nation was built. Remember it well by going to see this film. Be Blessed!

    Chase Windebank is a Colorado native who loves hiking through the Rocky Mountains, teaching Taekwondo, and writing. His goal in life is to stir up passion in his generation for the things of God, and to show people the true treasure of the Gospel in his everyday life.

  2. A very candid piece, thanks for that. I watched GND 1 and decided that I would skip any subsequent releases. Like you mentioned, it’s pretty well-meaning. However, it’s in many ways a caricature of different ideologies – like you eluded to.

  3. Your critique as much as admits the blatant dishonesty of the film. Your description suggests it’s designed to remind the faithful that “those non-Christian people” are deviant and doomed, while “us Christians” are so much better than them. We are justified in “standing up for our faith” in the face of constant challenges to what “we believe.” Which, in my experience talking with Christians, varies by individual and is nearly impossible to pin down. But I digress. The gist being, in other words, we don’t mind spreading outright bullcrap in order to counter threats to our fading Christian privilege.

    It’s simply another example of so much typical Christian propaganda nowadays-at least here in the USA. You fall prey to it in your statement, “Many atheists have an intense hate for God…” I would venture that the comment doesn’t make sense. It’s fruitless and rather silly to “hate” a nonexistent thing.

    However, James, I must admire your candid critique. It’s stunningly honest which is rare. It appears your first response above is already taking you to task for it as she reiterates the Christian persecution fetish. Must get tiresome.

    • James Nicholson,

      Since you mentioned my response in your comment I thought I would write a reply.
      I didn’t “take [James] to task” for what he wrote. What I did was express the positives and what I got out of the film.
      Christian persecution, especially in Muslim countries is real. Haven’t you heard of the killings and beheadings? The persecution that we face here in America is a different kind. It is in the form of attempting to silence our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association which is guaranteed in the first amendment. However, these days other’s so-called “rights” are held up rather than the rights of Christians. Chase Windebank’s case is but one example of hundreds.
      There is much that I could write regarding what you wrote to James:

      Your description suggests it’s designed to remind the faithful that “those non-Christian people” are deviant and doomed, while “us Christians” are so much better than them.

      No. The power of God is better than all of us!

      1Co 1:18

      For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

      • Hello Christine, and thank you for responding to my comment. I had a look at your link and was pleased to understand that Ms Windebank’s rights were restored as required by the US Constitution. I’m all for it. I take issue with your assertion that, “It is in the form of attempting to silence our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association which is guaranteed in the first amendment.” Who is attempting this “silencing” and could you provide a few specific examples of the hundreds of which you make mention?

        I suspect your definition of Christian persecution here in the U.S. is different than mine. Are there cases out there where people have come to harm, for instance, fired from their job, imprisoned, injured or killed, deprived of the same rights as all citizens solely on account of their Christianity? That would be surprising. Are Christian churches systematically being destroyed, shut down, barred to the populace, or otherwise restricted in their operation? Not likely. If it’s happening I’ve not heard of it. But, please enlighten me if I am wrong.

        Perhaps what you call persecution is merely the unwillingness of the rest of the population to suffer the incessant illegal attempts by fundamentalist, un-American, theocrats to foist Christian dogma and bigotry into the public sphere, i.e., schools, government, police cars, etc. The U.S is like 70% Christian, yet you and many others feel threatened by honest critique and mild pushback when Christians overstep the well-defined Constitutional bounds.

        If you care to continue the conversation, Christina, I am always curious about people’s belief in their particular version of the supernatural being we call God. If you have a notion to delve into some in-depth description about your faith, I would like to hear about it. Thanks again!

  4. Pingback: The Christian Persecution Complex in America: It’s A Thing. | James Bishop's Theological Rationalism·

Let me know your thoughts!

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s