When a young friend died at the tender age of 15, Kirk Cameron was left wrestling with the perennial faith-breaking questions, Why does God allow suffering? Why do bad things happen to good people? Matt had lived a full 2/3 of his young life with cancer. His parents were good people. They loved God, even as they had to watch their son slip away. Kirk loved God too, but he had a hard time reconciling the seemingly senseless pain of life on this earth with the Christian doctrines of a sovereign and loving God.
Is it that God loves his creatures but can’t prevent the things that cause suffering? Or could he prevent them, but doesn’t really love people enough to bother? Well, no. The Bible tells us that God is both fully loving and completely sovereign. This leaves honest Christians with something of a personal/theological puzzle. How to reconcile the two absolutely good characteristics of God with the inescapable (and ultimately inevitable) pain of suffering and death in the world?
His most authentic and vulnerable production to date, Unstoppable is the product of Cameron’s search for satisfying answers. Part Bible exposition and part visual diary, Unstoppable dramatizes and records his personal Q&A journey with God. It’s one fruit of his own suffering, if you will.
There’s life and death seriousness in Unstoppable – this man is not one to shy away from something just because it’s hard. But there’s also some comedy: Imagine you were going to make a film about the biblical story of the flood, and the central character was going to be God. From a storytelling point of view, this is a hard sell.
Nonetheless, Cameron dons his Sunday best and goes before a committee of Hollywood big shots bearing “Hollywood Pitch: The Flood.” It goes something like this:
Cameron: The setting for the story is the apex of evil. Humanity is destroying itself. Then God steps in and raises up a man named Noah. He has a heart after God and is blameless in his sight.
Exec 1: Hero, hero –
Cameron: And he begins calling everyone to turn back to God.
Exec 1: He’s the savior –
Cameron: And God commissions him to build a giant ship.
Exec 2: Like a cruise ship?
Exec 3: Oooh, cruise ship; that’s a good idea. We could go with that.
Exec 1: Midnight buffet! (laughing) How many desserts can you have at 1:00 in the morning?
Cameron: Guys, this is not about a cruise ship. It’s a three-story, massive, cargo barge –
Exec 1: [gets a quizzical look on his face]
Cameron: – with Noah, his family, and some animals.
Exec 2: Alright, this is where the family comes in. The animals could talk to each other. Kids love animals.
Cameron: No. You see, there’s a complete deluge of the entire world, and everyone –
Exec 1: Yeah, I can see it. Everyone gets on these floating cities and –
Exec 2: – and everyone forms, like, a republic?
Cameron: No floating cities. One ship. With Noah. And his family. And all the animals.
Exec 1: Where are all the people?
Cameron: [pause] Drowned.
Exec 1: Whoah, whoah, whoah –
Exec 2: It kinda portrays God as the enemy here.
Cameron: The reason God does this is –
Exec 3: If we go back to the boat and the animal thing … the more I visualize this, I see this more as a cartoon kind of thing.
And the beat goes on. The execs like the idea of the family, the adventure, the talking animals, and the rainbow. They really like the rainbow. Exec 3 can already see the spike on Pinterest. But Cameron wants to stay true to the story. In the end, the execs tell Kirk they love him. And they love the story. All except the part about God and what really happened.
Do you see what they’ve done here? They want to rewrite the story according to what works for them. “That’s the story people want to hear,” says Exec 1.
The scene is staged for maximum comic effect. It’s like a scene from The Office. But there’s a very serious point to be made through it. We can be like those execs. After all, don’t we all want to rewrite the story of life according to what works for us?
But then, when the world doesn’t act according to our script, we don’t know what’s going on. We get angry. Or depressed. Or both. We don’t get it. And we gnash our teeth at God. Whether we believe in him or not.
Perhaps we don’t “get” God because we don’t want God. We have not paid attention to what he has already told us. We have instead rewritten the story of our life according to what works for us. And then, when we find ourselves at odds with life, or when tragedy strikes and we reel in confusion, not only do we not understand, we don’t even know where to look to seek understanding. We wrote God out of our story.
Meanwhile God’s story goes on. And it’s not over. God, who is exceedingly patient and gracious, still calls all of us to repent and seek him. Sometimes that happens as a result of suffering. For some of us, it doesn’t happen any other way.
Cameron has produced a beautiful and brutally honest film, and I cannot recommend it highly enough. Dedicated to Matthew James Sandgren, May 2nd, 1997 – August 23rd, 2012, the Q&A session between Cameron and God ends with satisfying answers. Satisfying enough, at least, for the time being. The name “Unstoppable“ is fitting, but I had to watch all the way to the end to figure it out.
You should too.
Unstoppable will premier September 24th. Get your tickets here.
Related:
Terrell, after watching the trailer… beautiful I can see, brutally honest; that I doubt. Instead, as you said… it’s simply what works for us.
So, saw an interview on Fox, which I thought was pretty good up until they showed some of the film with a hand coming up out of the mud… (what is Adam… an Ork?) And if this is Kirk’s theology, then he’s confirmed my doubts.
http://fxn.ws/1dA2agr
CAMERON
He has a heart after God and is blameless in his sight.
CARR
Another blameless person! Gosh, who would have thought the Bible was lying when it said nobody was righteous – not even one.
“…and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith”
You can also check Eph 2 where it says that such righteousness is a gift.
I get it.
Nobody is righteous, except the people who are.
And your god gave Noah the gift of righteousness, and then killed all the people he had not given the gift of righteousness to – because they were not righteous.
Steven, not sure you do… consider the interchange between God and Abraham concerning Sodom. Between Moses and God concerning the Children of Israel. Had any listened to the words of Noah, they would’ve been spared.
“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”
Why should anybody believe somebody who said that their god was going to kill everybody?
You still haven’t explained why Ephesians 2 contradicts Paul’s claim that nobody is righteous.
‘“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”‘
Your god’s response was to drown the babies.
Come on Steven, think about it. If it’s given as a gift it means the person doesn’t have it and can’t obtain it on their own.
So all those people that god killed couldn’t get righteousness until your hypothetical god had given it to them.
Rather than give them righteousness, he killed them.
Could you give me a list of righteous people, bearing in mind that one bit of the Bible says nobody is righteous?
If He’s hypothetical, what does it matter what He did as there are no real consequences for the alleged actions?
Plus, you’re making it sound as though they were given no choice, no opportunity, to receive the gift…
“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.“
‘Why does God allow suffering? Why do bad things happen to good people? ‘
That’s easy.
Simply open your Bible.
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things.
The Hebrew word for the ‘disaster’ that the Christian god creates is the same word used in Genesis to describe the tree of knowledge of good and disaster.
Of course, the translators want to hide from readers the fact that the Bible says their god creates evil.
Isn’t it strange that when crimes are committed we demand justice be carried out on the criminal… and look for a judgment equal to the crime. If a judge convicts and sentences, but hasn’t the capacity/authority to sentence and enforce sentence, he’s criticized for being worthless. When God convicts, sentences and carries out, He’s criticized as being evil.
Not all crimes are the same, nor are all sentences. God sentences a LOT of people to death. Sometimes he sentences them to a horrible death (2 Kings 2:23-24), and potentially many of them to an infinity of suffering (hell). He is also responsible for evil (Isaiah 45:7) as Steven pointed out above.
Combine this with the claim that god is all good and all merciful. Human judges make no such claims. Can you not see the hypocrisy there?
“Not all crimes are the same, nor are all sentences.”
I agree, Frank, as it’s indicated in the Law of Moses. And as gruesome as being mauled by a bear may be, it’s certainly nothing compared to what’s coming.
Again with Isaiah 45:7!? When Israel sinned against God to provoke Him, He moved David to number the people contrary to the Law, sent an angel to execute punishment, bringing David and the people back from idolatry.
He is good. Provides acquittal for sins committed simply by faith, gives instruction on how to live the new life given and disciplines when one veers off course… then, rewards for faithful service.
Anyway, good talking with you.
Frank talks a lot of sense.
There are Muslims today who impose harsh sentences on adultery, not wearing modest clothing etc, because they are genuinely scared that their god will punish whole communities because of such things.
Many Christians have outgrown such a god.
But not all.
As can be seen from the replies on this thread, which are frightening in their indifference to human life.
You mean when your hypothetical god drowns babies, you don’t call such deeds evil, you call them ‘just’.
When your god creates evil, as Isaiah 45:7 claims, you call ‘evil’, ‘justice’ so you can continue to worship your child-killer.
Its called Divine Command Theory, which presumes god is just because, well, because god is just, you see.
There is no qualitative moral difference between this WL Craig stamp-of-approval DCT argument and Himmler’s address to the SS troops in Poland that they were remarkably good soldiers because they had the moral courage to participate in atrocities that were ‘just’.
Welcome to the Mulberry Bush.
tildeb, you were invited quite some time ago, in the comment section of Confronting Atheism on the Advance to make your case for what appears to be the foundational tenet of all of your multiple comments on CAA posts, the non-existence of God. Maybe you didn’t see that? Or maybe you’ve done so somewhere else, and I haven’t seen it?
Would you to do so here?
Maybe he’s side-stepping that issue as you are, mine.
If Cameron is changing ‘the math‘ then it’s unlikely he’ll reach any sound conclusion… and any feign toward brutal honesty, is just that… for our viewing benefit.
My apologies, Greg. But I’m afraid I don’t what issue of yours I avoided. Did you ask me a question? If so, can you either point me to it or repeat it here? I missed it.
Or are you just disagreeing with my take on the film that it was brutally honest? I would suggest you watch it first if you haven’t, but if we merely disagree over a take on a film’s or filmmaker’s honestly, I’m willing to accept that, respect your difference of opinion, and leave it at that.
Hey Terrell, Thanks for the reply… and I’m sure you’ve addressed your fair share of people’s comments/statements drawing into question the validity of a point made in an article, whether yours or others, without a specific question being asked.
My first post I was skeptical of your claim, having watched some of the trailer. Yet, I realized I needed to find out more about the movie to be fair. That’s when I found the Fox interview and article, watching the included clip, where Cameron was speaking on Adam’s creation… wow, bad doctrine! It’s not that it’s bad per se.. just sloppy… which makes it bad, so it is what it is.
So, if it starts out sloppy, not brutally honest… heck, just plain honest, for that matter…. how can I hope he’ll manage to deliver on the promised result? Right the ship and sail to fair harbor? I can’t. What I can expect is some empty platitude that comes nowhere near to answering the question asked.
And, so, I was hoping that someone who posts on a Christian apologetic’s website defending the faith with the truth of God “answering seekers, equipping Christians… etc” would have an interest to look into this. Ask about the doctrine/theology in question, clarify, pursue (as you so heatedly do tildeb) defend… if wrong, correct. Instead, you’re okay with the flaw because it gave you the satisfactory answer you were looking for… not the truth… but close enough.
And someone who takes the pain of another’s tragedy as the catalyst for an empty journey, offering worthless balm, is contemptible:
“But you forgers of lies,you are all worthless physicians.” Job 13:4
He needed someone to stop him.
Terrell, with the film clip I saw more than enough of the movie to know there is nothing brutally honest about it. And with you writing for an apologetic’s website, pursuing people across threads to address their issues, I guess I was thinking you’d ask what it was I saw and correct a distorted viewpoint, either mine or yours.
But I guess what you’re saying is that it’s okay to fudge the truth when they’re playing for our side. IF the beginning is close enough, then I guess the end will be, too. Oh… I have my answer.
I apologize, it’s a sore issue. I have no patience for empty platitudes… and, from the clip, I’m pretty certain that’s all he’s offering.
I’m sorry, Greg, but I don’t know how to answer you. Actually I don’t
really know what your question is. Again, if you’re just coming away
with a different feeling about a film than I did, based on having
watched the trailer, then I can accept that. We have different takes on
it, and that’s okay.
If there’s a falsehood that you want to
refute, then state it and make your case. Or even just state what it is,
and I’ll at least try to respond. Although I would still recommend
watching the whole film first. Otherwise, I’m willing to be at peace
with you and wish you well.
Terrell, the answer would be to question. “What did you think was wrong…?” lol.. anyway, I guess that’s what I was expecting. Maybe the difference between ordering at a restaurant or a corner deli. One you wait to be asked… the other you elbow your way to the front and shout the order across.
The trailer looked contrived but the clip, where the doctrine was stated and dramatized, that was the problem. The biggest issue, Adam wasn’t made out of mud… God didn’t create him or raise him from a puddle of mud. There are a couple of minor points, too, but no need to bring them up as they are secondary.
I’m okay if someone likes their steak done to a different wellness than mine, likes different music (will protest some bands, however) prefers the scenic route to the most direct (unless we’re late). But when someone says, “I asked the question and here’s the answer”, beginning with a distorted view of Scripture, I’m not okay with that… because at the end of it, when they really need the answer to that question…. they’re not going to have it.