Category: Movies

4 min read

Movies

Superman (2025): Who Do We Want Superman to Be?

Jacob LoCascio

November 25, 2025 6:56 pm November 25, 2025

4 min read

38 views

No Comments

4 min read

In the past two articles in this three part series, I’ve argued that in past Superman movies, Superman was written as a Christ figure, or someone who emulates an important…

In the past two articles in this three part series, I’ve argued that in past Superman movies, Superman was written as a Christ figure, or someone who emulates an important aspect or aspects of Christ’s character, mission or identity. For the newest movie, Superman (2025), I’ve made the case that this Superman is not a Christ figure, and is instead more of a humanist or existentialist exemplar.

But, so what? So what if this Superman is more humanist than messianic? For those that enjoyed the movie (and I certainly did too), this whole article might seem like another pointless addition to the never ending culture war. Superman (2025) is supposed to be a fun summer movie that you enjoy for the visuals and don’t think too deeply about. Right?

The truth is, very few (if any) instances of art and media are truly neutral, philosophically speaking. The significant changes to Superman’s origins and character were clearly deliberate. And if deliberate, then they were likely motivated by a philosophical stance or agenda. Our art, including “fun summer movies”, shapes us and forms us as people. The messages in our movies, shows and literature inform and influence our worldviews. So as Christians, we need to be constantly mindful and vigilant of all the implicit messages that any story, even the fun and silly ones, is trying to communicate.

Christian Existentialism

So what do we do with this new Superman? Must Superman be a Christ figure to be acceptable? First, it must be said that existentialism isn’t an inherently bad philosophy. There were some Christian existentialists, such as Søren Kierkegaard, Blaise Pascal and Fyodor Dostoevsky. They generally upheld the importance of personal choice. Pascal, for example, is famous for “Pascal’s Wager”, which encourages people to believe in God even in the absence of evidence, as rejecting God could have dire consequences.

And some existentialist views do correspond to Christian teachings. Existentialism teaches that your choices make you what you are. We can find a similar theme in 2 Peter 1:3-11. Here, Peter tells us that though God has “given us everything we need for a godly life”, we are to “make every effort” to complement our faith with various spiritual virtues. These virtues “will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Whoever does not have them is “nearsighted and blind”. So in some sense, we are responsible for the formation of our own character, and it is up to us (though of course with the help of God’s grace) to make the right choices in order to be a virtuous person.

This means that there are many positive lessons to learn from Superman (2025). Just like Clark, none of us have a choice when it comes to the parents we have, or the situation we are born into. But we can make the right choices despite our origins, as Clark did. No matter how ungodly or godly our household was during our childhoods, for example, it is up to each of us individually to accept God’s free gift of salvation and choose to obey Him.

Sisyphus or Savior?

On the other hand, Superman has long been a prominent Christ figure (at least in the movies). One less Christ figure in media means even less Christian influence in contemporary entertainment. And Superman (2025) is not alone. Shows like Invincible and The Boys turn “superman” figures into ruthless conquerors or morally bankrupt, egocentric frauds. These shows teach that you can’t trust the Christ figures. Rather, people must abandon hope in salvation from above and embrace the existentialist idea that you can only save yourself.

Maybe we as Christians don’t want every single character in our media to be just another flawed human being. Maybe we do want Christ figures in our films, shows and literature. At least, we might sometimes want stronger, more explicit Christian themes in our entertainment rather than just generic ethical messages that can apply to any worldview. The less Christ figures we have in our media, the less interested our culture might become in Christ. The more the gospel gets squeezed out of our stories, the more our entertainment becomes the salt that has lost its taste, or the light which is hidden under a basket.

Maybe Superman doesn’t have to be messianic for us to enjoy him. But surely we want some character out there to remind us of Christ.

No Comments

5 min read

Movies

Superman (2025): Who is Superman Now?

Jacob LoCascio

November 12, 2025 8:23 pm November 12, 2025

5 min read

61 views

No Comments

5 min read

In the last article, we saw that Christian theology heavily influenced Superman’s origin story and character in past movies. Superman’s benevolent parents send him to guide humanity and be a…

In the last article, we saw that Christian theology heavily influenced Superman’s origin story and character in past movies. Superman’s benevolent parents send him to guide humanity and be a “light” to them.

Superman (2025) turns this Christian message on its head. At first, it seems as though Clark’s Kryptonian parents are exactly like the Jor-El and Lara (Superman’s mother) of past portrayals. In the Fortress of Solitude, Superman’s Arctic base, Clark listens to a message from his parents. This message definitely seems messianic. Lara explains, “we have searched the universe for a home where you can do the most good and live out Krypton’s truth.” Jor-El then says, “that place is Earth”. Unfortunately, the message is damaged and only a portion of it can be played.

So far, so good, right? Well, it turns out that Superman’s parents didn’t really have the best intentions in mind for Earth. Superman’s nemesis Lex Luthor later exposes the missing portion of Jor-El and Lara’s message, revealing a sinister, imperialist plot.

Jor-El tells his son, “The people there (Earth) are simple and profoundly confused, weak of mind and spirit and body.” So Jor-El commands Superman to “lord over the planet as the last son of Krypton” and to “rule without mercy”. Lara twists the knife with this spectacular advice: “Dispatch of anyone unable or unwilling to serve you, Kal-El. Take as many wives as you can so your genes and Krypton’s might and legacy will live on in this new frontier.”

Message Denied

Obviously, Clark and the denizens of Earth don’t receive this message so well. So, a distraught Clark turns to his adoptive human father, Jonathan Kent, for advice. Jonathan, in a tenderhearted tone that reflects his down-to-earth wisdom, tells his son that “parents aren’t for telling their children who they’re supposed to be”.

We can already see how Superman (2025) changes Clark’s Christian origins somewhat radically. Instead of godlike, benevolent parental figures, Clark’s Kryptonian parents are chauvinistic and authoritarian. Clark’s messianic mission is nothing more than an imperialist plot. And we learn that not only should Clark’s biological parents be rejected as moral guides, but actually no parent should tell their children who they’re supposed to be (including divine parents?). It’s not hard to see how these are all significant departures from the Superman of previous films.

Superman turns more humanist as Jonathan Kent reveals more of his philosophy of identity. Jonathan says, “Your choices, Clark. Your actions. That’s what makes you who you are.”

Sartre’s Superman

Students of existentialism will recognize this message very quickly. It is the classic existentialist motto, “existence precedes essence”. Existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre taught that the fact that you exist (existence) comes before facts about what you are (essence). In other words, you start off in the world as an existing thing, but we have no idea what kind of thing or person you are. Why? Because it is your own choices that define what or who you are. Until you start making your own choices and defining who you are for yourself, you are a blank slate, and your essence is indeterminate.

In his book Existentialism is a Humanism, Sartre explains his philosophy in detail. He writes, “What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? (…) If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself”.

This view sharply diverges from traditional philosophy, which holds that essence precedes existence. For example, there is such a thing as a universal “human nature” which human beings participate in or take on when they are conceived. But Sartre writes, “there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it”. Beyond rejecting traditional philosophy, this statement illuminates the atheistic element of Sartre’s existentialism. It also closely relates to Superman’s origins in Superman (2025).

Kryptonian Enlightenment

As we saw, in stark contrast to the previous Superman films, Superman does not have benevolent, quasi-divine parents to define his identity and mission for him. His parents, like all forms of “organized religion”, turn out to be moral frauds, and Clark must cast their teachings aside. Since he has no guide (like Sartre has no God), Clark must figure out the meaning of life for himself.

As Clark himself declares to his nemesis Lex Luthor at the climax of the movie, “I’m as human as anyone. I love, I get scared. I wake up every morning, and despite not knowing what to do, I put one foot in front of the other, and I try to make the best choices I can. I screw up all the time. But that is being human. And that’s my greatest strength.”

Maybe nobody created Superman’s new origin story with an anti-religion or anti-theist agenda. But it’s still telling that Superman (2025) not only replaces Superman’s Christian origins and mission, but conspicuously and intentionally subverts them.

No Comments

5 min read

Movies

Superman (2025): Who Did Superman Used to Be?

Jacob LoCascio

November 7, 2025 7:37 pm November 7, 2025

5 min read

138 views

Comments Off

5 min read

In the newest movie, Superman is much less of a Christ figure and much more of an existentialist hero. Whether or not this change is welcome will depend on what kind of character we want Superman to be. I’ll explore all these questions in a three part article series, beginning with the theme of Superman as a Christ figure in past Superman films.

Do we want a Christlike Superman or a humanist Superman? The (relatively) new movie Superman (2025) depicts Superman in a way that challenges previous film portrayals of this classic superhero, such as the movies Superman (1978) and Man of Steel. Underneath the colorfully diverse cast of comic book characters, and the bright and chaotic superpowered fights, there are interesting questions to be explored in light of this film’s reinterpretation of Superman’s character, origins and philosophical significance.

The Ghost of Superman Past

Should we think of Superman as a Christ figure? By “Christ figure”, I mean a person who embodies or represents some important aspect (or aspects) of Jesus Christ’s messianic character, identity and/or mission. For example, C.S. Lewis’s character Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia is a very clear example of a Christ figure. Aslan sacrifices himself to save Edmund’s life, and then later resurrects from the dead.

So, is Superman like Aslan? Does Superman resemble Christ in any significant way? In old film portrayals of Superman, I think the answer to this question is a definite “yes”. In the newest rendition of Superman, or the movie Superman (2025), I think the answer to this question is “not really”. Again, in this film, the theme is way more humanist than it is Christian. But before we can explore this thematic subversion, and why it matters, we must travel back in time to see how older films depicted Superman as a Christ figure.

It is not hard to see the Christian elements of Superman in films like Man of Steel and especially Superman (1978). The character of Superman naturally has messianic undertones, as he is a godlike being who can fly, is nigh invulnerable, and who has all sorts of other overpowered abilities like super strength, super speed, and heat vision. He also spends his free time flying around Metropolis saving people. If that wasn’t enough, his typical origin story is that his parents sent him from the dying planet Krypton to Earth to guide humanity and give them hope. This sounds a lot like what a divine Messiah might do.

Man of Steel and the Messiah

Take Man of Steel, for example. In this movie, Clark Kent (his Kryptonian name is Kal-El) boards a Kryptonian ship in the Arctic and talks to Jor-El, his Kryptonian father, who is now just an Artificial Intelligence aboard the ship.

“The people of earth are different from us, it’s true. But ultimately I believe that’s a good thing,” Jor-El says. “They won’t necessarily make the same mistakes we did. Not if you guide them, Kal. Not if you give them hope.”

Jor-El explains that the “S” symbol, Superman’s symbol, means “hope”. He says, “Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief in the potential of every person to be a force for good. That’s what you can bring them.”

So here, Superman is meant to give humans guidance and hope. Specifically, he’s tasked by his father to carry out this spiritual mission. Jor-El tells his son, “You’re as much a child of Earth now as you are of Krypton. You can embody the best of both worlds.”

Sound familiar? John 1:14 declares “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth”. And Philippians 2:6-7 says that Jesus “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

So just as Clark is Kryptonian, yet can also identify with humanity, Jesus is fully divine and fully human.

The Savior in Superman (1978)

Superman (1978) presents Superman as even more of a Christ figure. In this movie, Jor-El tells Clark, “It is now time for you to rejoin your new world and to serve its collective humanity…They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you, my only son.”

Two of Jor-El’s terms here are conspicuously Christian. First, Clark is to be a “light to show the way”. In John 8:12, Jesus says, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” Second, Jor-El sends his “only son” to be this light for humanity. This echoes John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Back to the Future

All in all, it seems pretty clear that past portrayals of Superman in film have presented him as a Messianic, Christlike figure who is sent to Earth by his father Jor-El (a parallel of God the Father) to guide and save humanity.

But as we’ll see, this is not at all how Superman’s origins play out in Superman (2025). In this movie, Superman’s parents are a lot more like Nazis than they are like God the Father, and the mission they give Superman is malevolent, not messianic. This revision of Superman’s origin story fundamentally changes Superman’s philosophical and religious significance.

Comments Off

8 min read

Movies

The Lion King (2019): What Makes a King?

Nathan Montgomery

July 31, 2019 5:56 pm July 31, 2019

8 min read

3631 views

Comments Off

8 min read

Disney’s new photorealistic (the popular term is live-action but can we really call a movie live action when everything is digitally created?) remake of The Lion King debuted the domestic…

Disney’s new photorealistic (the popular term is live-action but can we really call a movie live action when everything is digitally created?) remake of The Lion King debuted the domestic box office with a $191.8 million, July record opening weekend performance. Though met with a lukewarm reception from critics and sitting at a rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes millions of people are still going to the theater. The Lion King is already a massive financial success. Clearly there is something about The Lion King that people are still hungry for.

This newest rendition of The Lion King is breathtakingly beautiful to look at. Every scene but one in the film is computer animated, but even to a trained eye it is very difficult to spot any cracks in the animation. It truly looks like there are real life breathing animals being filmed in the wild. This is a remarkable feat of movie magic making power. The film also sounds fantastic. I found Billy Eichner’s performance as Timon to be the best of the film, though I also really enjoyed Seth Rogen’s Pumba, as well. Chiwetel Ejiofor gives a very good performance as Scar that is more menacing than the conniving performance of Jeremy Irons, though the animated version’s “Be Prepared” is way better than the newer version.

There also were a few new story beats that I thought were interesting, that I wish had been explored more fully. Instead, what we mostly find in the new Lion King is a shot for shot remake that adds very little in the way of story, but relies heavily on the nostalgia and love of the first film. Some of the emotional weight is lost in the photorealism of the animals where you cannot animate emotion like you can in a cartoon. Also, some of the voice cast is weak and unable to give the necessary emotional weight to the performance.

The original 1994 The Lion King is my favorite Disney animated film. Sadly, the 2019 version fails to add much substantially new to the story. In many ways this newest adaptation feels pointless except as an exercise in computer graphics and a cash grab by Disney. It is worth seeing in theaters though for the amazing technical prowess of the film, and the enjoyment of the original story. The Lion King (2019) is good because The Lion King (1994) is great. Spoilers will follow, but really if you have seen the cartoon version you have seen the exact story of the new.

Spoilers:

There are many things that could be said about the story of The Lion King, which in case you didn’t know is adapted from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. However, I think one of the most powerful aspects of story is the exploration of the question, “What makes a king?” This is one area on which the new version of the film actually includes some improvements or interesting additions to the original film.

In this version of The Lion King there is a stronger comparison made between Mufasa and Scar. We find out that Scar believes he ought to be the rightful king and had at one time challenged Mufasa to be king. It is implied this is how he received his scar. Further on in the film we also have an exchange between Sarabi (the queen) and Scar, where she rejects his advances his toward her again. We learn that Sarabi had chosen Mufasa over Scar too. All of this brings Scar and Mufasa into sharper contrast. I would much rather have seen this prequel film between Mufasa, Scar, and Sarabi, than the shot for shot retelling we got in this film.

The film also explores the philosophies of rule between Mufasa and Scar. Scar says, Life’s not fair, my little friend. While some are born to feast, others are born to serve.” Scar’s view of being a king is that others are beneath the king in order to serve the king. For Scar being a king is all about power and control. Mufasa, on the other hand, has a very different understanding of what it is to be a king. After Simba ask Mufasa if all the land he sees will be his, Mufasa responds with, “It belongs to no one, but it is yours to protect. It is a great responsibility.” He goes on further to say, “While others search for what they can take, a true king searches for what he can give.” For Mufasa being a king is not about power but about service.

As I heard this dialogue in the film I could not help but think about the Biblical depiction of kings. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20 God provides Israel with the parameters for what a king ought to be. A true king is to be concerned more about following God and leading the people in worship of God, than about expanding borders or winning military battles. The king is not to have his heart exalted over his fellow citizens (Deut 17:20). When the Israelites demand a king in 1 Samuel 8, they are rebuked not for desiring a king, but for desiring a king like all the other kings of the world. In other words, they desire a king who is concerned about power, military might, and expansion of borders than they are a king who serves God and his people.

Throughout the Old Testament there is a longing for a coming king who will rule with love and righteousness. The New Testament reveals that this king is Jesus. The God-man who” did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). Tyrants seek the high places and to lord themselves over others, but Jesus tells us, “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave” (Matt 20:26-27).

In The Lion King we see a visible representation of this battle between the competing visions of a good and a bad king. Under the rule the true king, Mufasa, Pride Rock and the surrounding lands flourish. Under the fearful rule of the false King, Scar, the lands are dying. The land and lions long for the return of a king so that the land may once again flourish. Once our world flourished in paradise, but through man’s sin we gave over the world to rulers of darkness. The land and the people suffer under that reign sin and death, longing for the return of a true king who will restore the land and the people.

Simba is conflicted in the story. He does not think he is worthy of following in the footsteps of his father Mufasa. He believes he is too broken to be king. Finally, though through a vision of Mufusa Simba is told to “remember who you are.” Simba embraces his destiny and returns. In his confrontation with Scar, Simba demonstrates that is a true king who walks in the steps of his father, Mufasa, when he extends compassion and mercy to his uncle Scar. As Sarabi, had said earlier in the film, “a true king’s power is his compassion.

This story exploring what it makes a king is a common thread through many stories throughout the history of the world. There is something powerful that awakens deep-seated desires of the human heart. We cannot help but desire for a righteous ruler and king who will reign with compassion. Our love of The Lion King reveals this about our hearts’ longings. The Lion King reveals our recognition that we are all in need of a king.

Jesus is our true king, who walks in the steps of his Father. Whereas, Simba faltered to be a king, Jesus perfectly lived. In Christ we find a king who lovingly serves his people and lives sacrificially for them. His love was made manifest in his dying for us on the cross for our sins. One day he will return and reign forever in a kingdom defined by love and righteous. In the meantime his followers are called to extend the reign of the Son by being salt and light on the earth. We are to be ambassadors of the one true king Jesus Christ. In The Lion King we see but darkly an image of what it is that makes a king.

Comments Off

6 min read

Movies

Yesterday: The Beatles and Signals of Transcendence

Nathan Montgomery

July 24, 2019 9:09 pm July 24, 2019

6 min read

5071 views

Comments Off

6 min read

I finally was able to catch up on some films I was hoping to catch this summer. One being the new film Yesterday directed by Danny Boyle. Yesterday stars newcomer…

I finally was able to catch up on some films I was hoping to catch this summer. One being the new film Yesterday directed by Danny Boyle. Yesterday stars newcomer Himesh Patel as Jack Malik, a struggling musician, who one day wakes up to an altered world where he is the only one who remembers the Beatles. Jack begins to play the Beatles’ music as his own and soon rapidly rises to be an international pop sensation.

Lily James stars alongside Himesh Patel as best friend, manager, and love interest Ellie Appleton. Patel and James have wonderful chemistry together and represent a very likable couple for a romantic comedy. Music star Ed Sheeran also shows up and gives a wonderful slightly self-mocking performance as himself. Yesterday features a wide collection of beautiful covers of the Beatles’ ridiculously long and excellent catalog of music. All are performed by Himesh Patel, who does an excellent job singing as well as acting.

I found Yesterday to be a lovely sweet film with likeable leads, an interesting premise, and excellent music. Yesterday is not a perfect movie but it is a crowd pleasing film featuring an excellent production of Beatles’ music. This is a good film to check for those who enjoy romantic comedies and/or Beatles music.

Spoilers:
Yesterday offers up all kinds of interesting questions especially to those of the philosophical bent such as myself. However, I think one the most interesting ideas is raised toward the end of the film. We find out that there are two other people who also remember the world with the Beatles’ music. The tension rises as to whether they are going to out Jack or not. In the moment of confrontation instead of condemning Jack they thank him. This is quite startling, but their reasoning even more so. Neither of them are musicians and they are just thankful to hear Beatles music again. One of the characters states, comforting Jack, “A world without the Beatles is a world that’s infinitely worse.”

One can debate the merits of the Beatles music, though for my money the Beatles are one of the most beautiful songwriting teams of all time. However, I think this quote highlights something most of us intuitively believe whether we have ever taken the time to consider it or not: Art and music make the world a better place; the world would be lacking in some way if we were to lose a beautiful piece of art like Rembrandt’s Raising of the Cross, or Bach’s Six Cello Suites, or Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, or even, yes, the Beatles’ Yesterday. But why is it the case that there is beauty in this world, or why do we value creative expression and beauty in our lives? Why would we believe the world is worse off without the Beatles? What is it we think we are losing? It seems to me that we all recognize the intrinsic value of beauty because we all desire transcendence. When we encounter something beautiful, it has the power to move us beyond ourselves in a way the ugly or mundane cannot.

Ultimately, this desire for beauty I believe is a desire for God, himself, who is the source of all truth, goodness, and beauty. God is the preeminent creator who has created a glorious beautiful world. Truly, “the heavens declare the glory of God.” But not only do the heavens declare his glory and beauty but so do his creatures who are made in his image. As image bearers we reflect the marks of our creator in our creative ability. God has gifted this world by creating people with unique gifts and abilities that can introduce more beauty, grandeur, and goodness into this world. In part we can taste and see that the Lord is good, through the pieces of art created by people who are in the image of and created by the supremely beautiful One.

This also raises another important concept. Which story of the universe provides a better picture of the world? Does the disenchanted naturalistic, reductionistic, materialistic explanation of the secularists, or the enchanted, supernatural, and sacred explanation of the Christian better explain the world we live in? By my lights, the Christian worldview and explanation is much more desirable and beautiful than any alternative.

Apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in Handbook of Christian Apologetics, give an argument for God from Bach (or really from art and beauty) that goes like this:

There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Therefore there must be a God.
You either see this or you don’t

Many will find this an unconvincing argument, and I myself don’t think in this form it is the most persuasive. But if we understand this argument to really be pointing out that there is beauty in this world, and this is better explained by there being a God than not I think we can see it to be a helpful argument pointing toward God. Apologist, James Sire in Apologetics Beyond Reason, takes this argument and expands upon it. He argues that so much of current apologetics fails to account reaching the heart along with the mind. God has planted throughout the universe both in nature and through artists “signals of transcendence” that point us towards the reality that there is a beautiful Artist who is the Creator of all.

This brings us back to the movie Yesterday, which presents us with the beliefs that 1) there is beauty in the world 2) the world would be worse off if beauty did not exist, and 3) beauty is good. The Christian faith holds all these things to be true, and further grounds them in the beautiful God of the universe. God has chosen to create a world in which there is the Beatles music. God has chosen to create a beautiful world.

There is the music of the Beatles.
Therefore there must be a God.
I hope that you see this too.

Comments Off

8 min read

Movies

Spider-Man: Far From Home, Hits Close to Home

Stephen Jackson

July 24, 2019 9:02 pm July 24, 2019

8 min read

1757 views

Comments Off

8 min read

A couple of days before July 4th, Spiderman: Far From Home hit theaters riding the wave of the long weekend, hoping to snatch up all those movie goers with a…

A couple of days before July 4th, Spiderman: Far From Home hit theaters riding the wave of the long weekend, hoping to snatch up all those movie goers with a bit of extra time on their hands. I’ve been excited to return to the MCU’s webslinger and his friendly neighborhood antics not only in the wake of his stand along movie Homecoming but also amongst the aftermath of Infinity War and Endgame. The fish out of water story, set amongst the countries of Europe, coupled with a fish-in-over-its-head angle make for a great hook. As one reviewer put it “…Far From Home is the epilogue to Endgame I didn’t know I needed.” I was sold.

Did the movie live up to my hype? It’s worth seeing if you’ve been following most of the Marvel movies thus far but if you want to wait to stream/rent it you’ll be fine… is what I would have said after the movie ‘ended’ but the mid-credit scene changed everything. The movie takes on a whole new weight, meaning, and emotional investment that elevates the whole experience. It becomes one of those moments that all stories strive to accomplish but is often overlooked when comics and genre fiction achieve them. It holds up a mirror to our world and allows us to see beyond our own life. It teaches us empathy. Spider-Man: Far From Home is not better than Homecoming when it comes to the entertainment it offers, because it instead is offering something else. Instead of a spectacle it offers a seed. Less fun but more lasting.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Before we get to the kernel of truth Spider-Man is offering, here are few of the small things I enjoyed about the movie.
• The chemistry between the characters: Peter interacting with his friends, Peter being awkward about his romantic feelings, Peter being a part of Nick Fury’s new team. All the small character moments are great.
• I enjoyed the design of the fire monster. I like how it looked, how it felt when Spidey and Mysterio fought it. I like its powers, and how they interact with the world.
• The humor is back and it’s on par with Homecoming.
• I like the stakes. Even though this movie has raised the stakes and elevated Spider-Man to a true Avenger class hero, he still feels like a boots-on-the-ground neighborhood hero trying to be a teenager while keeping his friends safe.
There is a lot to like in this film, even if at times it drags just a bit. But onto the ending and its implications!

SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS

The mid-credit scene picks up right where the movie ‘ends’ revealing not only that Mysterio has used his hologram technology to trick the world into believing that Spider-Man killed him, that Spider-Man is some kind of villain, but also revealing Spider-Man’s true identity. And this news is brought to the public by none other than J.K. Simmons reprising his role as J. Jonah Jameson. What a reveal! The stakes for Spider-Man, personally, have never been higher. Gone is the editor of a printed newspaper, J. Jonah Jameson is now the host of the news talk show The Daily Bugle, that looks and sounds almost exactly like Info Wars and Alex Jones. The changes to the character are quite clever, though not subtle, and the implications are not lost on the view. Nor should they be for the Christian view especially.

It seems difficult to find out what is True in this day and age. This is not something particular to this current time, this current generation. The difference is not one of culture but technology. People have always lied. Politicians lie, news casters lie, celebrities lie, business people lie, your family lies, your friends lie, but now it’s much easier for people to hear the lies. This is why discerning what is truth and what is a lie becomes paramount to not only living a better, more informed life but also a Good life. A life that honors God. Though most of us cannot relate to keeping our anonymity, to wearing a mask, in order to do the most good for the most people, we can relate to being portrayed as something we are not. Or at least living under some level of fear of that happening, especially within the socially connect digital sphere of modern life. These are the two big themes of Spider-Man’s ending address: what is true and what should I do when my integrity is attacked.

The first is easy enough. As Christians our faith comes from God and the truth of that faith, its foundation, is found in the person of Jesus Christ (John 14:6). We know this because we have read the Bible and we believe it to be true. We as Christians have a filter to which all information can pass through. Those things that flow through the Biblical filter align with the Truth while those things that are caught reveal themselves to be false. The Bible teaches us to know these things and in turn allows us to then teach others (2 Timothy 3:16-17). And by teaching we become a part of the expansion of the truth ultimately covering the earth and fulfilling the Great Commission. While ultimately the public will eventually realize that Spider-Man is not some kind of villain, because he is a superhero and these are comic book movies, Christians can have the same assurance that what is true and what is false will be revealed when we hold them up to standard that God have given us.

The second theme is not always so easy live with. For those who have not yet been bitten by radioactive spiders the strain of this kind of attack is quite heavy. Many are the attacks from outside of the faith against those that choose to follow both the letter and the spirit of Gods word, Jesus himself said as much in Matthew chapter 5, and even calls his follower blessed because of it. Blessed by the very words of our enemies for being what we already claim to be. But what if the attack came from within the Church, from fellow Christians? What if those we trusted turned out to be the ones misleading us? That is the type of betrayal that Spider-Man is dealing with and many believes deal with as well.

As Proverbs 11:3 states “he who walks in integrity walks securely, but he who perverts his ways will be found out.” Whether you know the person or not, every time some pastor or leader within the church is caught in a sexual sin or accused of stealing money it always seems personal. Always seems like an attack on our faith, on the Church, and it is just that. It drives people away. People who were already a part of the Church, and people looking at those situations and seeing ‘that’ as the church.

If one superhero is a killer aren’t they all? Who can we trust?

How can that pastor have done this when they claim to believe the Bible? Is this what all Christians are like?

The Bible is a shield to the barbs of the enemy, not a wall to cover the sins of humanity, yet we cannot simply hide behind that shield. Our part is simple enough when confronted with untruth, when attacked in our faith: we must remain peaceful with everyone, in all we are able to do (Romans 12:18), innocent yet shrewd (Matthew 10:16), always doing good and ultimately relying on God’s Justice which goes beyond anything we can provide. (Romans 12:19-20). The world is a dark place, full of lies and danger, and yet we can take courage because Christ walks with us, for He has overcome the world (John 16:33). We are not the heroes, God is.

I look forward to seeing what happens next to Spider-Man; his heroic deeds and his exoneration. I hope you all are excited as well. Not only about the next movie but also in how this piece of art and entertainment is able to change us, if only in some small way. To be better Believers and better people to others. To be a part of the truth and a part of the source of true hope.

Comments Off