Faith in Film — Joshua

Great discussion last night as we looked at an interesting Christian film in "Joshua." Here is a summary of my notes and thoughts on this film.

Joshua (2002)

This is a film that leaves me torn because of the way it presents the Gospel. The film, based on a novel by retired Catholic priest Joseph F. Girzone, is centered on a mysterious stranger named Joshua (Tony Goldwyn) who comes to the sleepy little town of Auburn. The way he carries himself begins to have a positive effect on people, and soon it becomes clear Joshua is no ordinary man. By the end of the film he has delivered the heart of the Gospel message in a beautiful way and revealed to all that he is, in fact, Jesus returned in human form to present the Gospel to us again.

I understand intellectually why Girzone told the story this way. It is very clear that the church, and by that I mean the church worldwide, has trouble conveying the heart of the Gospel message in a way that moves and convicts people. Certain denominations also take a more legalistic, ritualistic approach to worship and serving God that can have a negative effect on people's attempt to connect to faith in a real, honest way. I think that is probably something Girzone felt during his ministry, and something he sought to address with this book.

He has since created Joshua ministries and aims at spreading the message of Jesus' love and sacrifice in a real way. And that is one of the most powerful aspects of this film. We need to lead with love, and we need to display Christ's love more in our messages and actions. I believe Paul speaks to this in Colossians 3:12-14, which says, "Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.”

Last Wednesday Graham talked about disputable issues and indisputable issues. I think the way that "Joshua" presents the Gospel is beautiful, real, honest, and indisputable. The way Girzone tells the story, I believe, is theologically flawed. That, I also believe, is a disputable issue.

I think the Bible offers clear evidence regarding what it will be like when Jesus returns, and the depiction in "Joshua" isn't it. Acts 1:6-11 says, "So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 offers a similar depiction of Jesus' return. I acknowledge that Girzone probably used this as a plot device to point out some of the problems with the church today and some of the ways our church leaders have lost the message. I love the description of the Gospel offered in the film, but I don't think he needed to introduce a theological flaw to do it.

It might be a sad commentary on us that the idea that a man would be so convicted by the message of the Gospel that he would speak out against church leaders too fantastic. Personally, I think that if Joshua had been a man convicted to live out Jesus' message it would have been an equally powerful film, I just feel like, creatively, Girzone may have felt like that would not have been believable to a modern audience. Though I can see that point, I think that is a sad indictment on our world today and on the modern church.

Additionally, I feel it must be intentional that the word Jesus is never uttered in the film. It makes sense from the standpoint that they are saying Joshua is Jesus, but it also hurts the ability of the film to convey some of its message points. In a weird way, it gives the film an almost deistic bent, which I think is unfortunate and unintentional.

So while I don't want to kill this movie because it does a nice job of providing food for thought for believers and a Gospel message for non-believers, I think they could have made different narrative choices that would have been effective.