Answers in Genesis Reviews “God’s Not Dead 2”–Welcome to Bizarro World (Spoiler Alert: AiG Doesn’t Think We Should Emphasize the Historical Jesus)

Today I’m taking a break from my summary/analysis of  The Unintended Reformation by Brad Gregory, in order to share the movie review of “God’s Not Dead 2” by the folks at Answers in Genesis. To get straight to the point, the 4,300 word review, written by Roger Patterson, struck me as quite bizarre.

Now, as with any movie review, Patterson commented on what he felt were the strengths and weaknesses of the story, the character development, and subplots. In that respect, the vast majority of the review is largely bland. And, being that the review was coming from Answers in Genesis, it should come as no surprise that by the end of the review Patterson essentially gave the movie a “thumbs up,” and said “the wise Christian can use it as an opportunity to have Christ-centered conversations with other Christians.”

That being said, despite the approval of the movie as a whole, the Answers in Genesis review wasn’t wholly positive…and that was just the first shock. I assumed the review was going to recommend the movie be nominated for “Best Picture,” but in actuality, it was quite critical of the movie on a number of points. It is both the criticisms and the rationale for those criticisms that struck me as bizarre. In fact, I think that the Answers in Genesis review of “God’s Not Dead 2” actually gives us a better glimpse into Answers in Genesis than it does the actual movie.

So without further ado, let’s “review” AiG’s review of GND2…

Introductory Comments
After first describing the movie as one that clearly showed the “battle lines between the raging atheists and the peaceful Christians in both the protestors seen outside the courtroom and the soft-spoken teacher facing the hateful ACLU lawyer,” Patterson makes it clear that he liked GDN2 much better than the original GND. Why? Because he felt that in the first movie there were “evolutionary ideas that colored the apologetics message,” and thankfully they were absent in GND2. If you’re wondering, “What were the evolutionary ideas in the first movie?” I think I can tell you: in the first movie, Josh Wheaton (the kid who debated the atheist professor) seemed to accept the Big Bang theory, the reality of evolution, and the old age of the earth. In fact, he actually used those things to make an argument for the existence of God.

Needless to say, Patterson and AiG did not like that. In fact, in his review of GND, Patterson criticized the movie on precisely this point: instead of appealing the “Word of God as his foundation” Wheaton “chose to appeal to reason—the reason of fallen men and women whose minds are blinded by the god of this age.” Translation? “GND didn’t hold to our young earth creationist claims, so we didn’t like it. It tried to make a rational case for the existence of God, so we didn’t like it. All claims should be based solely on the Bible…as interpreted by us.”

Well, fortunately, none of that “evolutionary stuff” was in GND2. Not only that, but Patterson felt that GND2 held to a “higher view of God,” and he was happy that the movie talked about sin more, and it emphasized prayer. And that was why he recommended GND2.

Don’t Argue That Jesus was a Historical Figure!
After discussing thematic issues, things like plot and character development, Patterson then turned his attention to what he considered one of the most disappointing aspects of the movie:

“The disappointing turning point in the film comes when Grace realizes that she doesn’t have to acknowledge Jesus as God or that the Bible is His Word to win the case—she only has to get the jury to think she presented Jesus as a historical figure from a historical document.”

In Patterson’s view, her decision to argue that Jesus was a historical figure, and that it was therefore appropriate to mention historical figures in history class, was a turning down the wrong road. Sure, that might have been a good argument in court, but Patterson felt that arguing Jesus was a provable historical figure somehow diminished him as God, and the Bible as His Word.

Don’t Wrap the Bible Up in the Stars and Stripes!
That struck me as bizarre. But there was more to come. Patterson then took issue with a statement in the movie that “the right to believe is a fundamental right.” Patterson actually correctly states that although religious liberty is something we enjoy in America, that we should not confuse that with our identity as Christians—many Christians worldwide do not enjoy religious liberty. Great…that is true.

But then Patterson said, “Wrapping our Bibles in the Stars and Stripes is not the way to advance the kingdom of God—preaching the gospel is.” Now, the bizarre thing is not in this statement itself, for the statement is actually true. The bizarre thing is that this statement is coming from Answers in Genesis. In the book I am writing, I discuss how Ken Ham regularly decries the moral decay in American society, and how he links it to evolution, and taking prayer out of public schools. His entire “battle plan” in the supposed “culture wars” is to (A) convince people Genesis 1-11 is literal history, (B) then that will get them to submit to the authority of the Bible, and (C) that will make it possible to re-establish biblical morality in America and make America a Christian nation again.

In short, the very way Patterson says is not the way to advance the Kingdom of God, is the entire basis for the Answers in Genesis organization.

But Back to the Bible, and that Whole “History” Thing…Welcome to Bizarro World
Patterson had a few more criticisms of the movie. For one, he was upset that the movie didn’t say that God was the author of Scripture. The way the movie talked about the human authors (i.e. the author of Matthew) made Patterson uncomfortable. That being said, Patterson was relieved that the movie did reference the accounts of Scripture, and didn’t use the word “story.” Answers in Genesis doesn’t like that word—in their mind, it diminishes Scripture.

Given that, I was altogether surprised that Patterson chose to drastically expand on his earlier criticism regarding Grace Wesley’s decision to argue that Jesus was a historical figure. In response to the testimony regarding the historical reliability of the Bible, Patterson said,

“As the Christian expert apologists present their testimonies to the court, the Bible becomes a mere historical document—one that can be examined and judged to be true based on various rational criteria. In the courtroom, the Bible is just a book.”

Sure, those Christian experts probably view the Bible as God’s Word, but they’re just arguing for its historical reliability in court. This, Patterson says, “presents a schizophrenic view of the Bible in the film.” The Christian experts say the Bible is historically trustworthy, sure—but upon what are they making that judgment? Answer: human reasoning—and for AiG, human reason is wrong, fallen, and bad. Therefore, part of Patterson’s criticism of the movie is that “the Jesus presented in the courtroom scenes is a Jesus who can be understood by appealing to man’s reasoning.” Patterson feels that this, in fact, denies the role of the Holy Spirit.

Patterson continues:
“In the courtroom, we can determine the attributes of this Jesus by appealing to reasonable scholars and historical sources—even atheist scholars. His existence is considered to be indisputable, and his life can be reconstructed by examining history—we can prove this Jesus by relying only on ‘historical sources.’”

And again:
“For a Christian to approach Jesus and the Bible in such a way is to offer a tacit acknowledgement that the Bible really isn’t the Word of God. It communicates that the Bible isn’t really reliable unless, using your own autonomous reasoning, you agree that it is. It places man in a positon of judgment over God’s Word, telling God whether He was right or not. Is that really what we want to do—invite people to judge Jesus based solely on historical details found in mere historic documents?”

I was flabbergasted: Patterson apparently thinks arguing for the historical reliability of the gospels is tantamount to saying “the Bible really isn’t the Word of God.” WHAT?  Patterson does not think we should “invite people to judge Jesus based solely on historical details found in mere historical documents.” WHAT???

Now obviously, as I said in my review of the movie, there is more to faith in Christ than simply mental assertion that he existed. But my gosh, the historicity of the life of Jesus is important! If the gospels are not historically reliable, then their historical claims are suspect. The heart and soul of the Gospel is the claim that the resurrection of Jesus happened within history. And yet here is Patterson and Answers in Genesis, actually criticizing the attempts in the movie to argue that Jesus was a historical figure!

How in the world could Patterson say this? Here’s the answer: “This approach tends to deny the effects of sin on humanity, telling the unbeliever that he can determine what is true and false about Jesus by simply allowing his own thinking to be his guide.”

Let me explain. What Patterson said is a reflection of what I would consider to be extreme Calvinism. He’s reflecting the belief that one of the effects of sin is that man’s ability to reason is completely obliterated. This is why Calvinism teach predestination: their starting point is that man is 100% dead in his sins, and his ability to reason is 100% corrupt, therefore it is impossible for man to choose God or understand Him at all. Therefore, any salvation that happens has to be 100% completely God’s doing—i.e. predestination.

Answers in Genesis Says, “The Historicity of Jesus and the Bible is Folly”
To be clear, Patterson is saying that if you try to make a reasonable argument that Jesus was a historical figure, and that the gospels are historically reliable, then you are making an appeal to human reason…but human reason is worthless, so why bother trying to argue for the historicity of Jesus? He even said, “If we base our arguments for the existence of Jesus on the mere historical evidence and people believe He existed, we should not be surprised if they go on to deny His existence later when someone presents a more convincing argument.”

There you have it: historical evidence is pretty worthless, so don’t bother. Just tell people the Bible is God’s Word—God is the author, ignore the work of the human authors. As Patterson stated, “We don’t have to present Jesus as a mere man or the Bible as a mere history book to win the skeptic or defend ourselves in a court case. In fact, to think our wise words and forensic techniques can do so is folly.”

I’m sorry, I just don’t get that. Patterson and AiG aren’t just saying that historical facts about Jesus aren’t enough; they are saying that making the historical case for the existence of Jesus is folly—the equivalent of putting “man’s reason” over God’s Word. 

This, shockingly, is denying the historicity of Jesus. It is a modern form of Docetism. And what makes this even more bizarre is that this argument is coming from…Answers in Genesis: a young earth creationist organization entirely devoted to trying to prove the universe is 6,000 years old, because Genesis 1-11 must be literal history if it is to be considered true.

This is an organization that repeatedly states that if Genesis 1-11 isn’t historical, then the Gospel itself is undermined. They have a website, blog posts, a museum, and now even a full-sized replica of Noah’s Ark—all in the attempt to argue that Genesis 1-11 is historical.

…but making reasonable arguments about the historical reliability of the gospels and Jesus as a historical figure—no, let’s not to that. That’s folly, that’s elevating man’s reason over God’s Word.

What can you say to that? Methinks if Ken Ham would have built a compound, rather than a museum, Evangelicals would see him in a much clearer light.

Conclusion
Here it is, short and sweet: Answers in Genesis places more importance on the historicity of Genesis 1-11 than on the life of Christ. That is the supreme irony, for it is a matter of fact and history that the genre of Genesis 1-11 isn’t history; and it is a matter of fact and history that the gospels are ancient historical biographies.

If this movie review doesn’t reveal Answers in Genesis for the completely backward, and decidedly unchristian, organization it is, I don’t know what does.