God's Not Dead 2

I was shocked by how much controversy and anger atheists had over the first movie "God's Not Dead."  I understand the cold apologetics and there are obvious different perceptions and interpretations of movies but there was so much critique of the first movie that was so off based I wondered at times did they actually see the same movie as I did?

I liked the first movie better than the second and Kevin Sorbo did such an excellent portrayal and tremendous acting in the first movie.  This movie I liked as well but it is spotty at times.  There are some great moments in the movie that I liked better than the first movie and then there are several weak and contrived moments.  Can we all be honest and real for a moment.  Does Christianity have to win in the end?  Does winning a court battle actually prove God is not dead?  I thought a better ending to the movie would have been if the Christian teacher would have lost the case and let the viewers ponder that.

Here are a few problems I did have with the film.  Almost every atheist in the movie is portrayed in pretty black and white and in this case, dark terms.  The atheist parents of the girl are uncaring for their daughter and seemed to have moved on quickly from their son's death.  The atheist lawyer and the ACLU are portrayed as people who genuinely hate Christians and want to destroy them.  There is the atheist lawyer who seems virtuous and wants to win the case for the Christian teacher and there are other forms of belief and disbelief and doubts that are shown throughout the movie.

I know we are to chuck our minds and just enjoy a movie but I know too many things in how our legal system really works.  The whole legal proceedings lacked authenticity and credibility in this movie.  What judge would let an attorney turn on his own client that turns out to be a kind of gimmick to win the case?  Then there are numerous Christian apologists who are paraded before the audience to give evidence that Jesus was a real historical person and that one should not try to separate the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith. 

But what was really on trial was the issue of whether this Christian teacher was trying to evangelize her students in her history class.   Like a shell game, the movie gives the impression, if one believes there was a real historical person Jesus, then he should be taught in the public high school like any other historical figure.  The whole bait and switch is for the whole movie to be an evangelism apologetic for the Christian faith.  From a legal standpoint, the movie failed in not really proving its case in a legal sense since it was too busy trying to prove the case for Christ for the watching audience.

I believe Christian persecution is a real issue and there have been teachers and coaches that have lost their jobs over their Christian beliefs and faith in court.  After saying that, how big of a problem in the American church is persecution really happening?  This movie plays on Christian worst fears that some day things are going to get really bad for Christians.  Christians have been thinking this way for centuries and for many, like most fears, never have materialized in a significant way. 

In the future, I wonder if Pureflix or any Christian movie company could make a movie where a Christian and atheist are best friends who show mutual love and respect for each other and maybe die in the end sacrificing themselves for some greater common good.  Now that is a movie I would love to see!