Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
TFTM: Leave the gun, take the salvation

TFTM: Leave the gun, take the salvation

Last updated on: January 17, 2012 at 9:40 pm by Fred Clark

TFTM: Leave the gun, take the salvation 2012-01-17T21:40:48-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Left Behind II: Tribulation Force, Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIZ_BK6l83g

“When your fiancé comes, he can stay here too,” Cam-Cam tells flirty not-Alice as she settles in to his apartment, and hundreds of conservative youth pastors sigh in relief as the movie crosses back into mostly acceptable territory.

It’s clear now how the movie’s version of the book’s romantic-confusion subplot will unfold, with Chloe jumping to the wrong conclusion about Cam-Cam and not-Alice and bursting into silly girl-tears. It’s just so much more romantic when you make them cry.

The phone rings — this is a Left Behind movie, after all — and it’s Steve Plank, politely reminding Buck to schedule an appointment with Planetary Potentate Carpathia. The filmmakers try their hardest to make this seem spooky and menacing, since Buck never gave Steve his home number. In the first movie, we saw Nicolae divvy up the world among 10 princes, murder two people in cold blood, and then brainwash a room filled with witnesses, so I’m not sure that tracking down an unlisted phone number really adds much to our sense of him as a powerfully menacing evil presence.

(On the scale of Creepy Movie Phone Calls, I’d score calling an unlisted home number as about a 3, with “Because I want to know who I’m looking at” a 7, “It’s coming from inside the house!” an 8, and realizing the phone isn’t plugged in a 9. A 10, of course, would be any call from Sallie Mae.)

We cut back to Rayford standing in front of New Hope Village Church. It’s nighttime, but we don’t know if this is the same night or the next night. The church we see through the open door behind Rayford isn’t the same church we see once they get inside, which, in a way, is creepier than Steve’s phone call.

“Hey Chris,” Rayford says, greeting his co-pilot from the first movie. Movie-Rayford seems to have more friends than book-Rayford does.

Inside the church, the pews are neatly arranged and filled with curious visitors as Bruce Barnes stands up front ‘splaining to them all about Bible prophecy. Bruce says …

Wait a second. Rewind. Suddenly I’m remembering a scene from the segment we looked at last week. It was only about 30 seconds long and I failed to discuss it then. I think I had pushed it out of my brain because: A) it makes very little sense, and B) it seemed to be included only to reinforce to us that Chloe/women is/are utterly useless.

That scene seemed to take place in New Hope’s sanctuary, but the pews had been removed, replaced with cots and floor-lamps scattered about the room. Wounded people of indeterminate origin and identity lay in the cots, with Bruce and some other people puttering about reading Bibles and/or administering first aid.

It was the sort of scene one would expect to see in the chaotic immediate aftermath of a major earthquake or similar disaster, but what that disaster was here in this movie was never explained. We know it wasn’t the Rapture and the crashes and calamities that came with that, because that was more than a week ago in our story and we’ve seen dozens of scenes showing us that life is back to normal from that. (Completely back to normal, strangely, with the missing children now regarded as old news.)

So I guess this church-based little MASH unit is in response to the random violence and criminality that the movie erratically suggests characterizes the post-Rapture world. And seen from one angle, that’s a nice corrective to what we read in the book. It shows Bruce and the other new believers at New Hope putting their faith into action in a way that none of the believers in the book ever do. And it provides Bruce and Chloe with more of an active role than they have in the book, where they both spend months and months locked away studying Bible prophecy lore that any semi-literate person could master in a day or two.

But how are we to explain the way this emergency field hospital suddenly appears in the church at sundown before disappearing the next morning? Where are all those patients now? Did Bruce and those firefighters finally come to their senses and move this emergency overflow clinic to the newly available elementary school? Or have that poor burn victim and the others been stashed away in some quiet Sunday school room so that Bruce can use the sanctuary for his prophecy lecture the next night?

And at a more basic level, the existence of those firefighters contradicts the whole premise of the scene. The idea of all that post-Rapture criminality and violence is that once the salt and light of real, true Christians are removed from this world, everyone left behind will be irredeemably wicked. As it was in the days of Noah, everyone will do what is right in their own eyes, dogs and cats sleeping together, etc.

So explain those firefighters. They weren’t raptured, so we have to count them among the wicked. Yet they don’t seem wicked. They seem like, well, like firefighters — doing exhausting, back-breaking, dangerous work for paychecks that barely keep them in the middle class. That would seem to indicate the possibility of altruistic and virtuous behavior among the unregenerate unsaved — and if that’s the case, then what’s with all the sirens and chaos and Escape From New York streetscenes?

Anyway, back to the present. Bruce Barnes is speaking:

Every person in this room has lost someone. A mother, brother, wife, friend. Ask yourselves this question: Did all of these people have anything in common? Yes. Two things. Either they had decided to follow Christ. Or they were too young to have made that decision in their lives already.

So I’ve got good news for you tonight. We lost our loved ones because of the Rapture. The Bible told us it was coming, but anyone who believed in Jesus Christ is in heaven right now with God. What’s left for us is a second chance.

And that concludes the comforting-the-bereaved portion of Bruce’s lecture and Bruce’s ministry. Your kids are in Heaven, let’s move on. We’ve got a prophecy check list to study and we don’t really have time for any more bother about our missing children, ‘kay?

Bruce starts to talk about the Tribulation and the Antichrist, projecting a map of Israel onto a large screen in the front of the sanctuary. This map clearly shows the actual nation of Israel as it currently exists — not the Greater Israel of the novels that Tim LaHaye insists must come to be in fulfillment of his prophecies, a vast area including most of what is now Lebanon and Jordan as well as parts of Egypt, Syria and Iraq. (The map also does not include Asia Minor, which is strange considering that Bruce intends to talk about the book of Revelation — a book expressly addressed to the churches in seven cities not on his map.)

Bruce explains that the Antichrist is on the rise — the first horseman of the Apocalypse. And because the Bible says he will ride forth “conquering and to conquer,” Bruce explains, we know that he will be a diplomat using diplomacy.

Chris sits impatiently, growing increasingly agitated before he finally gets up and walks out. Rayford and Buck follow him. Happily, so does the camera, meaning we’re not going to be stuck hearing the rest of Bruce’s lecture.

The scene that follows will be familiar to anyone acquainted with Christian-brand movies. It’s the evangelism fantasy sequence.

Cam-Cam confronts Chris with his version of the process of salvation. If you’re expecting something similar to the gospel of the Gospels, or to the gospel laid out in Paul’s epistles, then the Gospel According to Cam-Cam may seem strange. Basically he presents an argument for the theory of substitutionary atonement. If he can convince Chris to concede and assent to this argument intellectually, then Chris will saved. If Chris does not intellectually assent to this theory of atonement, then he will be damned to Hell for an eternity of conscious torment.

Cam-Cam’s goal in this conversation, in other words, is to get Chris to admit that he’s an awful person who rightfully deserves to be despised by God.

The fantasy element here is in Chris’ lines. His response to every prompt from Cam-Cam is, implausibly, precisely the response that Cam-Cam’s scripted conversion formula anticipates and requires. Chris seems powerless to say anything other than what Cam-Cam wants and expects him to say. He is trapped by the inexorable logic of the script.

Pure fantasy. No human being has ever given the responses required by the script and the formula that Cam-Cam employs here. No real human has ever recited the lines Chris recites here, allowing the evangelist to finish the recitation and to follow every step of the script’s neat presentation of the good news of bloody ransom.

That’s what makes the evangelism fantasy scene frustrating and cruel for its intended audience. Many of them will do just what it encourages them to do — they will go out into the world and attempt to replay this scene and this conversation with real people who, being real people rather than the ventriloquist’s dummies of the fantasy, won’t follow the strange logic of the script. And when those attempts to replicate the fantasy go horribly awry, these would-be evangelists will feel it is their fault — that they did something wrong, that they garbled the words, or left something out, or didn’t pray hard enough beforehand. And they will wind up feeling guilty and ashamed that real life isn’t like the fantasy.

David Macniven has an impossible task in this scene in the role of Chris. Not only does he have to supply all the unnatural responses to Cam-Cam’s evangelistic spiel, but he has to show that Chris finds the logic of that spiel undeniable and compelling. And then — while showing us that he agrees with every word Cam-Cam says — he has to show us that he still chooses to reject it just because.

In our survey of the books, we’ve noted many scenes like this. The authors often assume that anyone who has heard the soterian gospel without immediately converting must be deliberately choosing to reject it despite, deep down, knowing it to be the truth. Here poor Macniven has to find some way of portraying that perverse rebellion, he has to embody it and try to make it appear like something a human might actually choose to do.

He fails. “I can’t accept that,” he says, reciting the line from the script and walking away as it instructs, for no apparent reason other than that these lines and stage directions were written in the script. It seems unnatural and inhuman, but I don’t blame Macniven. No actor could make that scene work.

Back in the church we see Bruce conduct an altar call. This one has a bit of a twist in keeping with the wheat-from-the-chaff theme of this story — most of the people in the church come forward to be saved, but the rest don’t stay seated in the pews, they get up and leave.

CCM artist Regie Hamm starts singing something mournfully earnest and we see Rayford walking the mean streets of post-Rapture suburban Chicago. Roving mobs of the godless, unregenerate, left-behind evildoers are …

Well, actually, they’re mostly holding candles, weeping, praying and comforting one another as they gather around makeshift shrines commemorating their lost loved ones. These are the people that Cam-Cam’s God finds unworthy, unholy and deserving of destruction unless they assent to the proper propositions and pray the magic words. I’m sure this scene wasn’t intended only to undermine everything Cam-Cam just said in his scripted argument with Chris, but that’s what it does here.

Rayford’s reverie is interrupted by a woman in white who asks him, “You lost someone too?” But then his cell phone rings with a literal call for help from Chris and we get a lingering close up on this woman as he rushes off. She’s listed in the credits as “angelic woman.” I have no idea what to make of that.

A note about content: The remainder of this scene involves discussion of suicide.

The only hint we have of what’s going on in the next scene is in the initial shot, where we see Chris’ left hand with his wedding ring. He’s spinning a handgun on the coffee table in front of him.

Yeah, it’s that scene. Distraught man with gun contemplates ending his own life. Our hero arrives to try to talk him out of it.

But apart from that hint of the wedding ring, the filmmakers haven’t suggested why Chris is threatening to kill himself. The last time we saw him he wasn’t distraught, just fed-up. We haven’t been given any reason to guess at what Chris is going through. In his conversation with Cam-Cam he was begrudgingly willing to stipulate his technical guilt in Calvinist terms, but Chris is clearly not a man wracked with guilt, shame or remorse. He’s not suffering from a medical infliction that would lead him to this, or suffering through an existential crisis of meaning.

So that just leaves us with that wedding ring and the guess that he must be suffering from grief over the loss of his family. That seemed to be the cause of this character’s parenthetical suicide in the first Left Behind novel — an act that book-Rayford could barely be bothered to notice. Book-Chris’ wife was killed in a post-Rapture car-crash. Viewers of this film have no reason to suspect that’s also true of movie-Chris, but if it is, then his grief here is understandable, as both Bruce and Cam-Cam just carefully explained to him that his wife is even now burning in the fires of Hell.

But if this is what Chris is supposed to be thinking here, then what was the point of having Cam-Cam and Rayford focus exclusively on Chris’ sinful unworthiness when trying to talk to him of salvationism? If someone has just lost his wife and kids, then it might make sense to try to convince him that God is still a good and loving God despite the apparently arbitrary injustice and cruelty of this world. But it doesn’t make any sense at all to think that the No. 1 thing you need to do is convince him that he has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That’s cruel and bewilderingly beside the point.

“I know what it’s like,” Rayford says, “I lost my wife and my son, everything, just like you.”

Ah, OK, so grief it is, then.

Rayford starts out well, by acknowledging the substance, gravity and enormity of Chris’ grief, but then things go a bit sideways. He picks up where Cam-Cam left off, not with counseling or comfort, but with apologetics — with an attempt to create a logical argument for the existence of God from which Chris might further extrapolate that life is meaningful.

I don’t think this is a wise or helpful approach. If I’m ever distraught and out on the ledge, please do not send Josh McDowell out to talk me down.

Rayford’s whole case for Earth is based on Heaven. I think that’s backwards. He tells movie-Chris that his wife is in Heaven — unlike book-Chris’ wife, she was apparently raptured. He convinces Chris of this by asking him if he can prove otherwise.

“If they’re not, then where are they? You tell me, where are they?” Rayford shouts. Then he segues into a weird variation of something like Pascal’s wager before, finally, getting Chris to give up the gun and accept Jesus. Or something.

I heard Angela Lansbury interviewed once, talking about the intimidating task of playing Gypsy Rose Lee after the role had been defined by the inimitable Ethel Merman. “If you can’t sing the song,” Lansbury said, “sing the scene.”

That’s what Brad Johnson does here as Rayford. His lines here don’t make any sense, but he speaks them with a passion that conveys the sense of what he ought to be saying. The scene would actually make more sense if Johnson were speaking in some language I don’t understand. I could then watch the scene and follow the emotional trajectory of the two actors and feel as though I understood everything I was seeing. It would make more sense that way than the way it seems here, in English, where I can understand the appallingly inept words Rayford is actually speaking.

It’s a terrible song, but Johnson does a good job of singing the scene.

Left Behind

Previous Post

January 17, 2012

Who decides who is a 'minister'?

Next Post

January 18, 2012 Every day is a good day to call Congress about SOPA, PIPA

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which book comes last in the New Testament?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Acts Revelation Jude 2 Peter