/ / Articles

Godzilla Is Not Dead

There is one thing God and Godzilla have in common. People keep thinking they’ve been killed off, only to watch them come back to life.
| May 20, 2014 | 18 comments |

GodzillaNo, I didn’t get to see the new Godzilla movie this weekend, despite the fact it ranked #1 on the movie charts. I wanted to, but the one chance was on my 32nd anniversary and my wife wasn’t enthralled with the idea of taking in a monster movie. Romance and all. I guess she’s not in love with Godzilla.

We did go see “God is Not Dead.” Not speculative in any way (though I’m sure some atheist would disagree on that point), but there is one thing God and Godzilla have in common. People keep thinking they’ve been killed off, only to watch them come back to life. Thus the title.

Even in film, the monster keeps returning to the silver screen time and time again. About the only other long-running movie series is Bond.

Yet, in speculative fiction, especially science fiction, God has been declared dead on more than one occasion.

For one example: Star Trek. In that universe, no chaplains can be found aboard the ships. Any being with god-like powers is a more evolved species to which humanity will reach some day. While sometimes you’ll find some positive treatments of faith and religion in general (Bejoran, Klingon), it is presented as based in natural phenomena and/or alien influences—not a reality beyond our own nor an eternal God who oversees it all.

In the Star Trek universe, Christianity is, if anything, a footnote in history that died off long ago and God with it.

Gods not deadGod Is Not Dead may be trying, ironically, to nail the coffin shut.


Not intentionally, I’m sure. The movie was professionally done. The story, while feeling forced too often, was engaging. It used two veteran actors: Kevin Sorbo and Dean Cain. Most of the cast did a decent acting job given what they had to work with, though there were a couple of weak performances.

If I were to critique the movie itself, it would be the writing. One, there were too many story lines that distracted from the main story. They couldn’t fill a movie length with the main plot, so they threw enough unrelated sub-plots to stretch it out.

Two, while the story was entertaining, it lacked credibility on several key spots. Peter Chattaway, a Christian movie critic, describes the movie this way:

a sloppily written, badly argued, unevenly acted film about a first-year college student who tries to prove the existence of God within weeks of setting foot on campus.

But that isn’t what keeps God dead in this film. Rather, it is the intended audience, and the mixed signals it sends.

The title of the film appears to be an attempt to address secular society’s dismissal of God as a dying idea rather than a vibrant reality. However, the film will mostly appeal to conservative, Evangelical Christians who have no need to be convinced of that fact.

If your standard atheist walked in to see that movie, they would say the movie doesn’t really address their underlying issues, relies upon emotion to answer arguments, the premise—that atheists are such because God let them down at some point in their lives and so they hate God—is as straw man as you can get, and the movie conveniently avoids the more serious arguments.

This movie isn’t intended to reach atheist, but based on content, is focused to reinforce Christian beliefs among Christians.

It is the kind of movie a Christian might identify with, but a non-Christian will tend to shun. Which is sad when the national stage they are playing on provided them with so much more potential for outreach. Instead, it is kept well within the Christian bubble, ensuring few outside of Christianity will watch it or take it seriously.

It isn’t because it has a theme or contains preaching, but that the theme was wrapped and explored in an easy-Christian-answers-and-platitudes manner that provides red meat for believers, but nothing of substance for non-Christians, and thus little witness. That will only keep such movies segregated from most of society, and keep God dead in the minds of many.

As Peter Chattaway laments, this film has proved popular enough among Christians that it surpassed Courageous as the highest-grossing evangelical movie. Rotten Tomatoes puts its earnings at $58.9M as of this date. Mr Chattaway says:

And that’s why it pains me to see that God’s Not Dead . . . has been performing so well at the box office, to the point where it recently passed Courageous to become the top-grossing film ever made by and for evangelicals. If this becomes the standard for all Christian films to come, then the genre is truly in deep, deep trouble.

Can such movies and novels successfully break out of the Christian culture to address such issues in a way that speaks to the non-Christian? Or should we be content to stay in our Christian bubble?

As a young teen, R. L. Copple played in his own make-believe world, writing the stories and drawing the art for his own comics while experiencing the worlds of other authors like Tolkien, Lewis, Asimov, and Lester Del Ray. As an adult, after years of writing devotionally, he returned to the passion of his youth in order to combine his fantasy worlds and faith into the reality of the printed page. Since then, his imagination has given birth to The Reality Chronicles trilogy from Splashdown Books, and The Virtual Chronicles series, Ethereal Worlds Anthology, and How to Make an Ebook: Using Free Software from Ethereal Press, along with numerous short stories in various magazines.Learn more about R. L and his work at any of the following:Author Website, Author Blog, or Author Store.

Leave a Reply

Notify of
Leah Burchfiel

I think I would prefer it if we all agree to pretend that God’s Not Dead never existed. I can’t see any redeeming qualities to that movie beyond proving that Kevin Sorbo still looks good.

D. M. Dutcher

I can’t blame the people for making God is Not Dead. Yes, it’s a bad movie that preaches to the choir, but the problem is that only people who make bad movies seem willing to make Christian film. The people with the potential to make good movies seem to want to work in Hollywood and are fine with not making Christian movies at all. We keep blaming the people who try as opposed to the people who don’t even bother to try.

Paul Lee

D.M., I think you’ll really appreciate this guy’s take on the movie:


So basically, it’s not about converting atheists, or even about providing good art for an evangelical audience. It’s deliberately bad because that’s what the mainstream expects of an evangelical film, and evangelicals don’t care.

I haven’t seen the movie, but I find this interpretation interesting. Still, I don’t think it’s worthwhile to be deliberately anti-mainstream (just as it would be bad to deliberately suck up to the mainstream). Deliberately bad is still bad.

D. M. Dutcher

It was a good article. he’s right about many Christian films being more about the worldview of evangelical culture and for evangelicals than others, but he’s wrong I think in imputing intentional motives to this. They really want to reach people for Christ; it’s just they don’t have the skill to examine life enough to make art that’s true to it. To use those tropes intentionally is a profoundly cynical thing, and I don’t think Christians have that ironic or camp nature in filmmaking to do so.


Paul Lee

To use those tropes intentionally is a profoundly cynical thing, and I don’t think Christians have that ironic or camp nature in filmmaking to do so.

I would tend to agree, but is our disbelief of the capability of Evangelical artists to be darkly ironic merely a symptom of our own cynicism? What if Evangelical culture really does have the capability to be subtle and even “dark” — just in ways that very few people can understand, at least without being willingly hardcore about the sub-culture without any intention of finding common ground? Maybe everyone here is too critical and “discerning” to really understand the true subtlety of the hardcore evangelical sub-culture. Some of the early Protestants who wanted to tear down cathedrals would hardly be the ones to ask for a substantive critique of Catholic symbolism.

I have no idea — just a thought. If I believed this to be true, it would increase my respect of Evangelical creators, though probably not of the indusrty. However, I would still not want to be part of the sub-culture. I would still be somewhat critical of the art itself, because I don’t think self-imposed isolation is good. (Maybe the isolation is not primarily self-imposed, but I don’t think we’re supposed to exult in isolation.)

Leah Burchfiel

I really, really, really don’t think those peeps are self-aware enough to do anything ironic. That would imply that they know how to view themselves from an outsider’s perspective, and the evidence lends the conclusion that they don’t bother to learn about outside perspectives.

Michelle R. Wood

I suppose I’d be one of those Christians who’s working in secular entertainment. Early in my theatre career I worked for a Christian theatre. I have great respect for the work these people did and are still doing, and I would never put them down for the joy they bring to many people who come to see their shows every year. Their productions have great production values (really, you should see when they bring Jesus back at Easter, special effects galore), beautiful music, and are very good people to work for.

But I decided not to continue working for them after my one show. While I had a great experience, I knew I did not share the same theatrical vision as they did. They write toward a very niche audience, which is not rare in this business. I’ve decided not to pursue work at other secular theatres for similar reasons. I have my own specific career goals, and it was simply a matter that I did not feel those goals would be met by remaining there.

I’m certainly not opposed to working for a specifically Christian theatre. But I am not limited to working for them. To borrow a metaphor others have used, I hardly think anyone expects a contractor to only build houses for Christians. If such a contractor, entertainer, or author wishes to do so, I have no problem with that goal, and indeed pray for them as they pursue that calling. It is not a calling I have felt, however.

E. Stephen Burnett

Even Courageous was onto some things. I haven’t yet seen God’s Not Dead, but will likely need to simply because of my own work. I appreciated what Courageous was trying to do despite its preordained cheesy moments and overt emotional revivalism culminating in the predictable Altar Call that even Fireproof managed to avoid.

By the way I wrote more thoughts on Courageous and Christian movies here.

Robert Mullin

Hey, you kiped my Facebook post for a blog title! 😀


I would say that God Is Not Dead is influenced by the principals’ experiences. When you see mostly atheists who seem to be intent on punishing very gifted actors (or at least, even if you disagree with that description, undeniably successful at making money) like Sorbo has experienced, and being as rude as possible, that’s who you mistakenly think atheists are. Just as some atheists have seen only the worst of Christianity and thus view us as caricatures, so here. Sorbo is used more to the caricatured version of radical atheism in Hollywood, so that’s who the movie answers and views as the “average” atheist.

I’ve seen him interviewed, and Sorbo seems to be very sincere in his faith, a very nice man, and seems to view atheists as so radical based on his experiences. Most Christians are not Pat “the unbiblical” Robertson celebrating 9/11 and other crap, and most atheists are not like the radicals in Hollywood or the so-called Freedom from Religion Foundation extremists, but too many, based on experiences, of both groups view each other thusly.

Leah Burchfiel

Speaking of Pat Robertson, has anyone else heard of his denouncing Ken Ham and YEC? So much potential schadenfreude, so little time and popcorn.

Sarah Parks

My mom wants to buy God’s Not Dead. She’s aware that it’s not the highest quality, but she believes we need to support Christian filmmakers so that they have higher budgets in order to make better-quality films.

Personally, i am much less convinced. Some of the most moving art i’ve seen/read has been drawn with stick figures, filmed in a video game by a bunch of guys in a living room, written in someone’s free time for zero money. I’m concerned that putting money toward a movie like God’s Not Dead merely sends the message that this is the kind of film we want to see.

I don’t fault the makers’ intentions, whether it was to witness to the unbelieving or encourage the believer. I do wonder, though, how someone seriously interested in doing either could fail to look seriously at the issue at hand. There are so many books, papers, lectures, debates, etc. available, so many for free on the Internet, with better explanations on why people are atheists and more solid arguments for Christianity than showed up in this film.