Toy Story and Saw: how should Christians think about film?

In my experience thinking about film in relation to Christianity has been confusing, and I have heard conflicting opinions on the subject. Do the most holy Christians stay away from movies altogether? Does violence or sex in a film make it an unhealthy viewing experience? Does the presence of courage or love or religious undertones redeem an otherwise godless film? What makes a film ‘good’? I want work toward a clearer understanding of the issues at stake and toward the answers to these questions provided by the bible. I will discuss four important perspectives on the significance of film. Please note that the ‘approaches’ in this essay are simply a heuristic way of describing strands of thought I have noticed in contemporary culture which borrow heavily from elements of academic fields, rather than an complete delineation of the principles of those field. I will then discuss the ‘moral complexion of godless art’, ‘the moral complexion of godly art’ and conclude with ‘the place of film in the life of the believer’.

The Postmodernist Approach: ‘Creating Meaning’
There is a way of thinking about films that deem them valuable simple by virtue of them being art. This approach says that film is a significant phenomenon because it allows us to create meaning and value. It displays and catalyses the beauty of man’s self-creation and self-definition. One form of this approach is to see the film-maker as the creator of value. His work (if it is high-quality), is beautiful as a piece of art: the viewer simply perceives this beauty. This has no necessary connection with ‘objective’ values or morals outside of the art, but it’s significance is solely involved with the art itself as a product of humanity. Edmund Clowney observes that “Painting, sculpture, photography, music, poetry- that which we call ‘art’ has become an end in itself; indeed it is given an absolute value that not only resembles religion but also demands religious commitment” (Edmund Clowney, ‘God & Culture’, Edited by D.A.Carson & John D. Woodbridge, 1993). The film, in other words, has become intrinsically valuable, not valuable as a means of doing something else.

Another form of this approach is to say that the viewer creates the meaning of film. The artist’s job is to facilitate the viewers’ creation of what is worthy and beautiful. Art is not self-interpreting but leaves it totally up to the viewer to interpret (Izod, 2000). The film, despite being deceptively realistic, says very little about the real world. The filmmaker has his own intended meaning, viewer receives a very different meaning and viewer sees a still different meaning. The thing of significance is the interpreter not the interpreted.

For the post-modernist, power lies in the autonomous individual. We have the freedom and capability to interpret in any way we want. No one dictates the meaning and value of my life. It is quite obvious that this is far-removed from the bibles way of seeing things. Firstly, although we can only see things from the point of view of our own minds and subjectivity, and communication is imperfect, still when we each read the bible, we see the same God. In the same way, art can communicate truth about the real world to many different viewers. However, even the artist has not been left alone to decide what is beautiful and what is ugly, what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. Value and beauty are created and defined by the ultimately valuable and beautiful self-revealing Lord. Anything we create that is of worth, is of worth by virtue of its relation to that Lord.

The Psychological Approach: ‘Modifying Behaviour’
The psychological approach insists that there will be observable positive or negative effects on the viewer depending on the kind of film. There has been a plethora of research done over the years investigating the effects of television and the media on behavioural and attitude change. Marie-Louise Mares, for example, conducted a meta-analysis of multiple studies on the behavioural effects of TV shows on primary school children. She found that exposure to certain programmes did show increased pro-social behaviour. ‘Mr Rogers’ Neighbourhood’ increased persistence and obedience in the child for a time (Friedrich & Stein). But, in addition to the transience of the effect, it was largely dependant on parental mediation. There is significantly less positive effect if parental co-viewing is simply social rather than instructive (Valkenburg et al). Moreover, the effect on adolescents is negligible. All this suggests that media is not decisive in determining pro-social behaviour. Rather, it’s effectiveness is governed by other factors, for example the nature of parental involvement. This interpretation would account for the lack of more substantial effects and would explain the presence of small behavioural changes.

It has also been posited that violent media incites violence in it’s viewers. Case studies such as Jamie Bulger’s murders after having watched ‘Child’s Play’ have suggested the accuracy of this thesis. Moreover, Phillips noted significantly more murders 10 days after the screening of heavyweight boxing. Josephson found that, having watched a violent video featuring the use of walkie talkies, ice hockey players were more violent during their game. This is said to be explained by ‘cognitive priming’ (Josephson), which understands that screened behaviour sets a ‘template’ in the viewer’s mind which then becomes applicable to real-life situations when ‘cues’ are perceived. Similarly, ‘desensitisation’ theory says that the appropriate physiological response is lowered by watching screened (Funk), suggesting that the natural aversion to acts of violence in the real world is also decreased: causing increased violence.

Although these cases do indicate some kind of connection between screened behaviour and the viewer’s behaviour, they do not establish the screened behaviour itself as the cause. It is important recognise certain problems with the research. ‘Child’s Play’, it is now concluded, was not the originator of Bulger’s will to murder, nor did it ‘inspire’ the act. Moreover, it is just as likely that a pre-existent will to murder was the cause of his viewing ‘Child’s Play’, rather than vice versa. The correlation between screened boxing and higher national murder rates is also dubious. A connection between the two is far from clear. Highly controlled boxing in a sporting context is a far cry from murder. Such a jump is not explained. The leap would be analogous to explaining a boy punching someone by his spending time playing PacMan. The ice-hockey players in Josephson's experiment were still playing within the bounds of the game, and were possibly more aggressive because they thought the video meant the experimenters wanted them to. Furthermore, concerning desensitisation, if it was proven that screened violence does ‘desensitise’, Cumberbatch made the point that this actually says nothing necessarily about sensitivity to real violence. TV violence is simply not “true to life” (Condry), the connection between screened and real violence again would need to be governed by something else. Feschbach and Singer argued that the cathartic effect of film violence actually decreases the need for violent outlets in real life.

Having said all this, it is not appropriate to deny any effect of media on behaviour. We need to discern whether certain types of movies have particularly damaging psychological effects on particular individuals, and act accordingly. But I think it is clear that pro/anti-social media does not constitute the determinative factor concerning the viewers response. David Giles points out that these studies fail to account for the effect that deeper attitudes and values have on our experience of films. I think scripture agrees that it is these attitudes and values which play the crucial role in the development of minds and which govern our responses to the behaviour we observe.



The Anthropological Approach: ‘Picturing Culture’
(Jay Ruby, ‘Picturing Culture: Explorations of Film and Anthropology’)
The third approach to understanding the value and power of the film finds its impetus neither from the individual’s creative subjectivity nor on the behavioural effect of the film. The anthropological approach says that film is significant because it teaches us about the world. The anthropologist Robert Gardner put it this way “Cinematic recordings of human life are unchanging documents providing detailed and focused information on the behavioral characteristics of man.” (Jay Ruby, ‘Picturing Culture: Explorations of Film and Anthropology’) Films are a means by which we can see the contours of the society they portray. In this way they broadens the mind by extending our religious, ethnic and political consciousness. In other words, films are to eliminate individualist subjectivity, rather than support it.

Not only does this approach state that films perform this function but also that this function is good. It is good to be attuned to the diversity of world culture because world culture is good. In the same way that it is good to eat an apple because an apple contains nutrients. So it is good to be ‘cultured’ because culture is beautiful and worthy of respect. The artistic value of the film itself, has little place in this approach. It is not intrinsically good but instrumental to cultural awareness.

A Christians, I think we can support this approach in a number of ways. Films can in fact be helpful depictions of the societies of this world, and we heartily advocate the study of human society and culture. Furthermore, there are, in a certain sense, ‘good’ and admirable things to be found therein. But it is the nature of and reason for this engagement with culture which I think should be questioned. Accordingly, I would like to suggest certain ways in which the anthropological approach falls short.

Firstly, it is myopic to think that films are simply lessons about society framed by artistic filmmaking, and it is myopic to think that all that is conferred to viewer is anthropological information. the post-modern approach proposed that the film actuates the subjectivity of the viewer, the anthropological approach makes the opposite mistake. “...it is simply false to claim that art has nothing to do with “messages.” Indeed, we are living in a time in which the messages of art are becoming more and more explicit.” (John M Frame, ‘Theology At the Movies’, 2005). When reality is wrapped in a layer of creativity, a statement is always being made about the reality it presents. This is because films created by filmmakers, filmmakers are people, not information machines. These minds cannot and do not create isolate packages of anthropological data for presentation. A film is what linguists call a whole ‘communicative event’, that is, a whole system of interconnected emotions, desires, values, memories and beliefs are involved, not just information transfer. A film is a complex dialogue between the whole of the viewer with the whole of the viewed. Filmmaking, therefore, and film-watching are moral activities. The biblical approach, in contrast to the anthropological, accounts for this complexity.

The second thing to note about the anthropological approach is that films can only teach us about the world if they are accurate depictions of it. It is certainly true that all films do present in some form a portion of non-filmic reality. Even the most abstract, surreal and avant-garde films speak of something pertaining to the humanity which produced them. However, it is equally true that no film perfectly pictures the real world. It always wraps reality in a creative blanket. Simply the medium itself: the screen on which it it is displayed, our awareness of the film crew and expectations based on other films all alters our perceptions of what is being displayed. This does not by any means render the film, including the ‘wrapped’ reality any less powerful or instructive overall, but it does mean that we cannot watch films as if we’re watching society. Film is a type of art and must be treated as such.

Finally, the anthropological approach engages with culture in this way because it esteems culture in and of itself, seeing it as valuable and worthy of respect. As Christians we agree with this approach in saying that there are elements of culture that are, on some level, ‘good’ and deserving of credit. Police work is good, marriage is good. But does this make the police work and marriage in films ‘good’? Should we study human culture because human culture is good? Any comprehensively Christian understanding must give appropriate weight to the fall when it deals with post-fall phenomena. I will return to this point in ‘The Biblical Approach’.

The Standard Christian Approach: ‘Sanitizing Film’
As far as I can see, the most common approach to film among (Western) Christians seeks to do two things: 1. prevent exposure to depictions of what is deemed particularly extreme, explicit or immoral, and 2. to identify elements of films which seem to express or support biblical truth.

The first goal, of course, is not exclusive to Christianity but it is of particular emphasis, especially in relation to young and developing persons. This approach, borrowing heavily from the psychological, submits that exposure to extreme violence will cause psychological harm and a warped understanding of human interaction. Similarly, too vivid a depiction of sexual interaction is perverse. It is unethical, it is said, to enter into another person’s sexual experience like this and forms a false understanding of sexuality. I think it is true that particularly extreme depictions of violence can indeed cause psychological harm. And depictions of sexuality can indeed arouse lust wrongfully. One must be very aware of one’s own weaknesses and aptitudes.

This goal, however, is in danger of making the same mistake as the psychological approach. The significance of violence and film is derivative of deeper issues. There are vivid depictions of violence and sexuality found in scripture. It is not the presence of sex and violence which is problem.

Somewhat parenthetically, I suggest that It is important to discern whether a film is glorifying violence (making it look cool or sexy) or making it look as wrong and horrible and serious as it is? And is it depicting sex in order to arouse and stimulate the viewer, or is it there as an important part of the narrative? Why does the scriptwriter include swearing or blasphemy? In the same way, we should seek to understand why there are certain depictions of particularly flagrant immorality: to celebrate them or deplore them? We should see not only what is there, but what the filmmaker’s reason for it being there. In addition, no matter how realistic the film is, we are not actually participating in either violence or sexuality in the sense that it is always acting. The actors in a film sex scene are not aroused are are not having intercourse, the acting experience is fragmented, difficult and tense. My point is not that Saw, for example, is actually teaching a good, healthy worldview underneath the extreme violence. My point is that the fact that Saw contains extreme violence is not what renders it ‘unchristian’. There is something extrinsic to depicted violence and sex which govern their goodness or badness.

The second goal of the common Christian approach is to find what Ted Turnau calls “fragments of grace” (Popologetics: Engaging Popular Culture, pp 109). Secular film inadvertently displays the truth of God in small, broken parts. There are the ‘archetypes’ of the ‘collective mind’ (Carl Jung): deep structures which reflect the Creator and which manifest themselves in creative products such as film. For example, ‘self sacrifice’ is a motif in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, ‘redemption’ in Les Misérables, ‘love’ and ‘justice’ in innumerable films. In addition, there are mainstream retellings of biblical stories, such as ‘The Prince of Egypt’, ‘The Passion of the Christ’ and ‘Noah’. Although they are imperfect portrayals of Christianity, they present enough goodness and truth to render the film acceptable and healthy.

Again, this outlook contains certain aspects of truth. There is, in fact God’s signature on every human mind and creative endeavour. But what exactly is the meaning of these fragments of grace for the Christian’s engagement with film? Do enough of these fragments constitute a ‘good’ film? If there is extreme violence but enough fragments of grace, does this make a film suitable viewing material for a Christian? Or is it the active recognition of these fragments of grace that make a viewing experience acceptable? What does the bible say about the fragments of grace in non-Christian art?

The Biblical Perspective:
The godless heart
As we have seen, films are not packages of information: they are morality-laden messages, from humans to humans. So the first premise of the biblical understanding of non-Christian art is the doctrine of non-Christian morality.

Romans 1:7:18-32
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

...And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

In chapter three Paul cites from the Psalms:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
    no one understands;
    no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
    no one does good,
    not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
    they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
    in their paths are ruin and misery,
    and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

This is a devastating critique of godless culture. It is a vastly deep, broad, sonorous definition of the human transgression- something that the anaemic theology of post-modernity fails to provide us with.

The first thing for us to recognise is that Paul identifies fragments of grace. He says “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.” His invisible attributes have been clearly perceived. Sinful man sees God. If we see fragments of biblical truth in Godless art, it is no wonder. Without this underlying attestation to God there would be no coherence, no pretence of order, beauty or morality. There would be no art. Man suppresses the truth but does not eliminate it.

But how does Paul see the significance of this fragment? “So” (as a result) “they are without excuse.” The universal knowledge of God does not lessen the odiousness of their sinful situation. It condemns them! “although they knew God they did not honour Him”. It is the fact that they understand which makes their absence of praise evil. Us Christians can sometimes think of non-Christians as desperate for hope that they cannot find. They seek meaning and the truth and express what little they find. It is our job, it is said, to complete what is lacking, to fit the final pieces of the puzzle. But this seems to be the opposite of Paul’s thesis. They, as we once were, are “haters of God”. “foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless”. This is total depravity. Wholesale, active rebellion against God. They saw the light, fled from it and now hides in darkness. Furthermore, when the root is corrupted, the fruit manifestly are too.

The moral complexion of godless art
They “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man”. Obviously these ‘images’ are not referring to film, but I don’t think it is a coincidence that the film industry makes 100 billion dollars a year. Instead of acknowledging God, man assembles to adore physical representations of himself.

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” God sees fit to allow their dishonouring hearts to overflow into dishonouring action. Fragments of grace in a godless heart only amplifies its godlessness. In the same way, fragments of grace in godless art only amplifies its godlessness. The presence of certain aspects of God’s truth in a film which does not praise him, renders the film more repulsive because of its inconsistency. Therefore “no one does good”. The whole product has been declared evil because the whole heart has been declared evil. .

But this evil is not content to be self-contained, but it is a disease, seeking to corrupt everything it touches. “They use their tongues to deceive… Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery,” Godless culture is aggressively expansionist, laying siege to the unprotected mind. Films are never neutral. They are always actively seeking our destruction or they are workers with us in our joy in Christ.

The moral complexion of Godly art
If godless heart necessarily produces art that “does not see fit to acknowledge God” and seeks the destruction of the viewer, what is the moral complexion of Godly art? How would we recognise a film that is itself good and pure and healthy? Well it would have to come from a God-filled heart, it would see fit to acknowledge God and would seek the good of its viewer.

The bible says little about the mode of Christian expression, that is, about the techniques, medium, language and tools of communication. I think this is because these are contingent: they are not the morally relevant factors. But scripture is very loud on what the content of our communication should be. We have seen that film-makers are painters of worldviews. They are teachers and preachers, and are therefore not exempt from the norms revealed for the work of other teachers.

2 Timothy 1:8-14
Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.
In the past, films with explicitly messages have generally been, cheap, cheesy and preachy in a contrived and simplistic way. This should not and does not have to be the case. Just because things have been done badly in the past does not mean the concept should be disposed of. We must check ourselves as to why we are averse to the idea of gospel-centred film. Is it simply because they’ve been done badly in the past or because we are ashamed of the gospel?

A godly film is not “ashamed of the testimony about our Lord”, “but share[s] in suffering for the gospel”. Put positively, the godly film testifies about our Lord and suffers for the gospel. This suffering will be in terms of monetary profit and also in terms of reputation. It is seen as disgustingly arrogant in this culture to be self-consciously promoting a particular ideology, especially if that ideology is religious. Such propaganda is shameful. So the temptation is to simply speak quietly, obliquely and with more palatable philosophies interwoven. But we are required to declare the truth, not just because truth is good for people but because heaven and hell hangs in the balance. The cost for doing so will be great, but to the regenerated heart, the gospel is more valuable than success in the artistic and popular domain.

This leaves a lot of questions about exactly which aspects of the gospel needs to be stated explicitly, in what way. Maybe very little would need to be verbally stated in the film, metaphors and ‘fantasy’ have not necessarily been precluded by this norm. How a film speaks about Christ will be largely dependant on the socio-cultural domain with which the film is expected to engage. The films relation to other Christian ministries is also a determinative factor.

But for all these secondary, changeable issues there is one ruling norm and one end to which everything must strive. It is this end which seems to have been forgotten. Goodness, truth and beauty has a fountainhead which, if cut off, stops the it flowing to anywhere else. This fountainhead is not just good, true and beautiful but it is the “power unto salvation” (Rom 1:16). The power unto salvation does not lie in the concepts of purpose and grace, it lies in the purpose and grace of Yahweh which is in Christ Jesus. It does not lie in exploring the nature of death, it lies in Christ who abolished death. It does not lie in stories about life and immortality, it lies in the “Saviour Christ Jesus, who... brought life and immortality to light”. Of this only was Paul “appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher”. And this only is the good deposit that has been entrusted to us. If you are a painter of worldviews, you cannot afford to paint anything else. Your whole work must be for this and to this.

This may require us to give up much, but it does not require us to abandon artistic value. In fact, there is nothing so conducive to artistic and creative explorations. The gospel evinces manifold facets, depth in philosophy, breadth in real-world repercussions and profundity in psychological, existential, and emotional aspects. It will take us eternity to search the unsearchable riches of Christ, have we deemed it unworthy to be the subject of filmic art?

By discussing these two passages, my point has been this: a film with no explicit sexuality, or no bloody violence or with themes of vaguely Christian influence may seem to be a good, healthy or godly film, and these can be important considerations, but scripture sets a vastly higher standard. There is more at stake. On the most fundamental level, the Lion King is no better for us than the Nightmare on Elm Street. Neither film magnifies the worth of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So when we are thinking about which films are going to be good for our children’s development or what movie to watch with our pizza on Friday night, this needs to be the first thing to recognise. It is most central and most crucial.

So where does that leave us? If pretty much every blockbuster in the world is evil, what could justify us watching them? Should we just watch cheesy preachy films from now on?

The place of film in the life of the believer
Daniel 1:3-4
Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, the chief of his officials, to bring in some of the sons of Israel, including some of the royal family and of the nobles, 4 youths in whom was no defect, who were good-looking, showing intelligence in every branch of wisdom, endowed with understanding and discerning knowledge, and who had ability for serving in the king’s court; and he ordered him to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans.

v17
As for these four youths, God gave them knowledge and intelligence in every branch of literature and wisdom; Daniel even understood all kinds of visions and dreams.

Firstly, we are told they were chosen because of their knowledge and understanding of that particular Babylonian culture. That doesn’t yet mean that cultural knowledge is good but simply that their entrance into that cultural domain was only possible because of that knowledge and proficiency. Secondly, in verse 17, we are told that God Himself “gave them knowledge and intelligence in every branch of literature and wisdom” (literally: ‘God gave them knowledge and skill in every learning and wisdom’). I think this is more meaningful than ‘a certain group of people needed to read certain books one time, so God helped them’. The reason Daniel needed understanding of the culture is because God wanted to make His name known to the Babylonians. God-centred ministry requires involvement with God-hating works of culture. It was not because of fragments of grace, or because the ‘literature and wisdom’ was good in any way or beneficial for himself as such. He needed to have ‘knowledge and intelligence’ therein because that was the domain in which he was doing God’s work. The art was not good, true or beautiful, God’s purpose and work was good, true and beautiful.

It is necessary to recognise that Daniel did not unreservedly participate in the pagan culture, “Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank” and later he refused to stop praying. It was observable to all that his allegiance was to the God of Israel, (we are all aware of the particularly tense trip to the zoo that Daniel is famous for as a result). But this allegiance did not entail declining to read their depraved literature, it actually required it.

We too have been placed in Babylon, and in this city, film is a significant “branch of literature and wisdom”. Just like Daniel, joining with God’s missional redemptive purposes requires a full understanding the culture we minister to. Christians need to understand the world of film. This doesn't mean everyone has to study film theory, it doesn't mean we have to intellectualise film night. We must cry when its sad, laugh when its funny, and see fragments of grace, if we don’t then we don’t understand the film. But we must see these things in proportion. There is one factor that rules the efficacy of every other factor: ‘is the cross in view’. Is the filmmaker working for our souls or for our eyes?

Conclusion and petition
Firstly, the criterion of a ‘good’ film is not whether it ‘creates meaning’, ‘modifies behaviour’, ‘pictures culture’ or ‘sanitises’ the world. The criterion is if it acknowledges God (Rom1), whether it communicates God’s “purpose and grace” (2Tim 1) and whether it is unashamed to suffer for the gospel. Neither Toy Story nor Saw meets these criteria, neither film is ‘good’. The goodness of the film does not justify the Christian's viewing it, it is the way we view it, and what we do with it. What makes a ‘good’ engagement with film is a committed, intelligent understanding of it, in order to have a committed, intelligent understanding of people. We cannot we fight a loving battle if we don’t know our opponents.

Secondly, where are all the bible-saturated, Spirit-led, God-centered, Christ-exalting filmmakers? Where is the 116 Clique of film? If you are particularly interested in film or capable in the field of work, think seriously about this being your mission-field. We need films that 1. announce “our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” and 2. that are written masterfully, directed brilliantly, acted convincingly, cinematographed beautifully and produced skilfully . A film like this could not be ignored even by the Babylonian city. We don’t need Christians who try to do films, we need Christian film-makers. If it seems that this could be your vocation, pray about it, talk to your pastor about it, get trained, set up a team, found ‘Christians in Film’ and keep your eyes on Christ. You are sorely needed.