Come Sunday

Last night I logged onto Netflix and immediately saw a new release to the streaming service - a movie called "Come Sunday."  I watched the trailer for the movie and was intrigued.  It's a true story about a Pentecostal minister named Carlton Pearson who eventually adopted a universalistic theological stance and was subsequently excommunicated from his church and denomination.  I clicked "Play" and found the movie engaging and intriguing.  Although Pearson eventually comes to adopt what I would consider to be an unorthodox and heretical theology, I thought it was a good movie and one that is worthy of being watched.  In fact, I would recommend that parents of high school-aged children watch the movie and work together to think biblically about how Pearson comes to his conclusions outside of the guidance of the Bible and against the counsel of close and trusted godly friends.  If anything, the movie is a fantastic example of how man's wisdom fails and the wisdom of God as found in his word holds true.  (Note: the movie contains a couple of "mild" swear words and some discussion of homosexuality).

Pearson starts out as an orthodox Pentecostal minister who consistently and persuasively preaches the biblical gospel to his church and to all those who will hear.  As time goes on, however, he becomes increasingly disturbed by the plight of Africans - particularly Rwandans - who are dying as a result of war and atrocity.  He cannot bring himself to understand how God - a loving God - would condemn to hell those who have not heard the gospel due to no fault of their own, and who are condemned to perish forever in hell simply because they were unfortunate enough to be born in a country where Christianity is not prevalent, and ruthless violence is a regular part of life and death.  Pearson is torn by what the Bible teaches about the punishment of hell for unbelievers, and the plight of his unevangelized fellow human beings.

Later, Pearson tells his church that he has had a direct revelation from God - hearing a voice "as clear as my own" -  that those who die without ever hearing the gospel are already saved and in heaven.  In short, Pearson adopts a universalistic soteriology, meaning that he believes that all people will be saved, regardless of their knowledge or belief.  When members of his church - including trusted friends - push back against his newfound universalism, Pearson clings to the personal revelation he received as his reason for not being willing to recant.  After all, why would God have told him that all people would be saved if it weren't true?  Even when encouraged to consider the possibility that the devil told him this, and not God, Pearson balks, and holds that his personal revelation is from God and is true.

The rest of the film deals with the consequences of Pearson's new beliefs (such as losing his church, his excommunication, strained family relationships, etc.).  The movie is superbly acted, especially by its star (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who was heretofore unknown to me, and is entertaining and engaging to the end.  I especially appreciated how the movie was fair and balanced to the different stripes of Christian belief that were present.  In other words, none of the characters were made to seem as Bible-thumping crazy religious people, even though they held very different views.  Additionally, the movie's treatment of homosexuality was good and balanced.  It's refreshing to watch a movie with religious themes that doesn't make you feel like your beliefs are getting picked on.

Although the movie is indeed entertaining and engaging, it is worth noting that the primary issue that it raises (Pearson's struggle over how God can allow people to go to hell who have never heard the name of Jesus, and his eventual embrace of universalism) is not new, nor is he the first to succumb to its draw.  This is a question that honest believers have wrestled with - and provided solid, biblical answers to - for centuries.  In fact, one of the characters in the movie (Pearson's closest friend and advisor, Henry) gives Pearson a solid biblical answer to his questions.  He says that everyone has exposure to God, regardless of their geographical location or cultural eccentricities (Romans 1.19-20) according to what has been made (creation), and are therefore responsible to seek him.  Indeed, even God's invisible attributes are made known to all people.  Those who seek God according to his natural revelation will find him, as Henry says, "...through a missionary, or through a dream or a vision."  This answer, however - both generated from scripture and from the mouth of a wise and godly friend - is not enough to persuade Pearson.

Perhaps the biggest warning given by the movie to Bible-believing Christians is the danger of so-called personal revelation.  After all, Pearson's persuasion to universalism is primarily and almost completely founded on "hearing God's voice."  The foundation for Pearson's move to universalism is that he allegedly heard God speak to him and tell him that all people are saved.  To be fair, Pearson does use 1 John 2.1-2 as a proof text for his newfound beliefs, but his argument from scripture for universalism takes a far back seat to the personal revelation he received from God (not to mention that 1 John 2.1-2 is not even close to teaching universal salvation, nor does the film portray Pearson dealing with the immensity of scripture that teaches individual salvation).

This is the danger of "hearing" from God outside of his word.  We have no objective way of knowing that the voices, impulses, or feelings that come and go in our hearts and minds are from God, or are from the undigested bit of pepperoni pizza I ate last night.  If we regard personal "revelation" and feelings from God to be authoritative in our lives, a large number of people would venture out on all sorts of crazy crusades.  Indeed, a brief observation of history yields a myriad of examples of people who have done just that!

Instead, we must trust that God has spoken to us through his word, and that his communication to his people in these last days is limited only to his word.  We know that God has spoken to us through the Bible; we are very much less certain about feelings and hearing voices in our heads.

Moreover, to suggest that in order to answer life's difficult questions we need personal revelation from God, the implication is that the Bible is not enough to answer those very same questions.  Pearson had a very legitimate and honest question: "What happens to people who die who have never heard the name of Jesus?  Will they go to hell?"  To find answers to that question, he relied on a "voice from God."  What Pearson apparently didn't know was that God has already answered this question with the voice of his word (see Romans 1.19-20).  If Pearson believed that he needed a personal revelation from God to answer his question, then he (either knowingly or unknowingly) implied that the Bible was not sufficient to answer his question.

Bible-believing Christians reject this notion.  In his word, God has given us everything we need for life and godliness.  If we were in need of additional revelation from God to be able to think, live, and answer difficult questions in life, then by necessity the Bible is insufficient.  And, as Pearson's story so vividly and painfully illustrates, when we elevate personal revelation above the revelation of God in his word, we are very easily drawn away from the true and saving message of the gospel.

The Bible is enough.  Know it.  Love it.  Live it.

Calvinist

 About two months ago I saw a trailer for a yet-to-be-released documentary called "Calvinist."  As a Calvinist myself, and since the trailer was intriguing and looked well done, I preorder a copy of the DVD.  The movie was finally released and I received it and watched it earlier this week.

A Calvinist is a person who adheres to a Reformed understanding of salvation (also called the doctrines of grace, summarized by the acronym TULIP) and the complete sovereignty of God in all things - theology that was developed and propagated by Reformers such as John Calvin and many others.  The documentary does a great job in briefly explaining these doctrines in a creative, entertaining, and very well-produced way (in other words, learning about this theology through this documentary is anything but boring).

An additional purpose of the movie is to look at why Calvinist/Reformed theology has made such a resurgence in American Christianity over the past 20 years or so.  This is where I really connected with the documentary, as it seemed to be telling the story of my adult Christian life.  Almost every instance that led to this resurgence listed in the film has also been evident in my life.  Looking back on my life through the eyes of this film made me grateful to God how he awakened me to these life-giving, Christ-exalting doctrines in my spiritual journey.

First, the documentary says that one of the initiators of the Reformed resurgence was a preacher and teacher named R.C. Sproul.  Sproul, now 78, is a Presbyterian minister who has written countless books and taught on Reformed theology for decades.  In the year 2000 I was 20 years old and working as the janitor at Riverview.  The days of constant mopping, window washing, and vacuuming soon grew long and boring.  So I explored the church library for some listening options and came across a series of R.C. Sproul's teaching on cassette tape (yes, tape).  I began listening mostly just to pass the time while I cleaned the church, but soon became enraptured in what he was saying.  Later, I picked up one of Sproul's books, The Holiness of God which was a game-changer for me.  In this book, Sproul lays out God's holiness in a way that I had never heard before, elevating God to the position of supreme sovereign of the universe, and myself as a worm.  The contrast between his holiness and my own lowliness had never been clearer.  When we understand God's holiness, we get a new appreciation for his sovereignty and how and why he works in the world.  As I look back, this book was my entrance into Reformed theology.

Second, the documentary notes that a particular sermon by a preacher named Paul Washer was instrumental in drawing many people back to the authority of scripture and the call to continual repentance and Christian holiness.  Washer is a former missionary to Peru and is now the leader of a missionary society and itinerant preacher.  The untitled sermon has been unofficially regarded as the "Shocking Youth Message," as it was originally preached at a youth evangelism conference in 2002.  I don't recall how I was first turned on to listening to this sermon, but I do recall, however, sitting at my desk in my office, enraptured by what he was saying, almost in tears, feeling as though I was being punched in the gut over and over by what this man was preaching.  As one commentator I heard put it, "This sermon made me want to get saved - again."  I was so impacted by this sermon, I immediately purchased DVD copies and gave them out to as many people as I could - both Christian and non-Christian alike.  If you've never seen or heard the "Shocking Youth Message," you should stop what you're doing right now and take the next 59 minutes to watch it.  You will be changed by it.

Third, the documentary notes that one of the supreme reasons for the resurgence in Reformed theology over the last two decades or so has been because of the writing and preaching of John Piper. It wasn't until after I was married that I really got into Piper's writing and preaching.  I remember my first exposure to Piper's theology merely through the title of one of his books: The Pleasures of God: God's Delight in Being God.  The title intrigued me.  I had never before considered that God delighted in himself - that he delighted in being God, or that such a being as God had the right to delight in himself.  The content of the book had much more to offer, however, and I was hooked.  I have memories of washing dishes in the first apartment that my wife and I lived in, with John Piper's sermons in my ear buds (I had moved on from cassette tapes by then).  And Piper kept publishing books.  Books upon books.  And I ate them up.  The focus of Piper's writing and preaching, and his contribution to the Reformed resurgence has been to, I think, magnify the sovereignty of God, and how we as his children find our utmost satisfaction and fulfillment when we delight in his ultimate sovereignty.  This overarching message is probably most clearly communicated in Piper's seminal work Desiring God.  In this book you will most clearly read about Piper's flavor of Reformed theology.  Probably the most accessible representation of Piper's theology and its application to everyday life is his brief book Don't Waste Your Life.  If you want a taste of what delighting in the sovereignty of God looks like in your life, you should read this book.  It was significantly influential in my own life and thinking.

It has been interesting to see how my personal spiritual development has influenced my thinking in every day life.  My kids have recently gotten into the music of Petra - an 80's and 90's Christian rock band.  Their 1990 album Beyond Belief is truly a masterpiece and occupies a spot on my personal top 10 list (on cassette tape).  Recently, as I was listening to some of the songs from that album, my kids overheard and have since developed an appreciation for the music, to the extent that it's all they want to listen to nowadays.  Last week I told them that in conjunction with the album, Petra produced a 60 minute movie that told a story with music videos of their songs interspersed, and they wanted to watch it, so we did.  The movie tells the story of two brothers, the younger of which is an up and coming track and field star who is in the process of being recruited by universities and is receiving scholarship offers.  His older brother (who is also his running coach) reveals that he has been diagnosed with cancer.  This revelation infuriates the younger brother, who begins to blame God for all of his personal and family problems.  The older brother maintains his walk of faith, and tries to encourage his younger brother to continue to trust God.  As part of this process, the older brother tries to comfort his younger brother by saying, "God didn't give me this cancer."  This statement, regardless of how comforting a person might find it, is biblically inaccurate (and actually, I don't find it either comforting or encouraging).  This statement implies that God is not sovereign over cancer.  Rather, the Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things - even horrible things like cancer - and that he either causes them or allows them to happen for his purposes, which, also according to scripture, are always for the good of those who love God and who have been called according to his purpose (Romans 8.28).  God is sovereign over everything - even cancer.  And that should change how we think about cancer: it is not stronger than God; it is not out of his control; cancer is not sovereign - God is.  That truth is encouraging; that truth is comforting.  The idea that God is not sovereign over cancer is, to me, terrifying.  If God is not sovereign over cancer, then it is an unsolvable mystery that can only lead to fear and doom.  Praise the Lord that he is, indeed, sovereign over cancer.  (Note: to show how even cancer is under God's control and can be used for his purposes and for our good, John Piper has written an excellent article called "Don't Waste Your Cancer."  Even if you don't have cancer, you should read it.  It is an excellent example of how Reformed theology is practically applied to every day life.)

In this documentary I saw a lot of myself, and the journey I took to get to where I am today.  This is just a snippet of what it covers.  I'm glad for the release of this documentary, and I hope a lot of people will see it.  If a documentary on the resurgence of a theological stream doesn't sound very interesting to you, you'll be surprised at how engrossing this film is, and by how much you enjoy it.  You should see it (the film is available on DVD in the Riverview library), and come to know the doctrines of grace which most beautifully and gracefully describe our God and the sovereign, glorious salvation he offers.

The Shack

Several years ago, the book “The Shack” was published and was all the talk in Christian circles.  It’s description of the Trinity, and also how it deals with the problem of evil in the world, inspired many.  At the same time, however, many others condemned the book, saying that it promoted universalism and unbiblical ideas about God and the Trinity.  Out of curiosity, I picked up the book and started reading, only to put it down out of boredom a short time later, never to return.  Cut to today, and the film adaptation of “The Shack” is playing in theaters, and many Christians are wondering what to make of it: is it a Christian movie?  Should I see it?  I’ll attempt to answer these two questions here. 

Is “The Shack” a Christian movie?
In response to those who have criticized “The Shack,” many have said that people need to lighten up; the book is fiction, after all, and its intended purpose is not to lay down precise doctrinal statements.  While this may be true, it is also true that every work of literature espouses and promotes a particular worldview and theology.  From “Huckleberry Finn” to “Little Women” to the latest Stephen King horror novel – every book espouses truths about God (even if they aren’t overtly stated – the characters’ views of morality and truth are statements about God), and about the proper way of interpreting our world and reality.  “The Shack” is no less an espousal of theology and worldview, even if it does not do so conspicuously.

That being said, we can confidently say that “The Shack” is decidedly not a Christian book or movie.  There are multiple problematic elements that come out in the book and movie, including the representation of God the Father as a physical woman named Papa, the espousal of universal salvation, and more.  To read a thorough list of the theological problems with “The Shack” read Tim Challies’ review here.  

But aside from problems that come directly from the book/movie, Paul Young has made it apparent that he, himself, is not a Christian, and therefore cannot espouse a sound Christian theology or worldview in his literary work.  That is a bold statement, but it is one that is based on Young’s own confession of faith.  Earlier this month, Young released a non-fiction book entitled “Lies We Believe About God” in which he exposes what he believes to be lies associated with traditional Christian belief.  Unfortunately, the “lies” that Young identifies are the pillars of the historic, Christian faith.  For instance, Young denies that humans are inherently sinful; Young further denies that God is sovereign; he denies that human beings are in need of salvation (Young favors the idea of universal salvation – that all are saved regardless of belief); he denies a literal hell or punishment for sin; he denies that Jesus had to die on the cross for our salvation; and on and on the list goes. (For a more in-depth understanding of Young’s beliefs, see Tim Challies’ review of “Lies We Believe About God” here.)

While Young’s fictional story of “The Shack” may have been ambiguous when it came to specific Christian doctrines, his book “Lies We Believe About God” unambiguously sets him clearly outside of the historic, orthodox Christian Faith.  This is important to realize, because it means that the theological foundation upon which “The Shack” is built is not Christian.  And if the foundation is not Christian, then the theology espoused by the book is likewise not Christian.  It does not propagate a sound Christian theology, nor does it espouse or promote a Christian or biblical worldview.  In fact, if a person does base his or her theology on this book and/or film, he or she will come away with a heretical and powerless theology, and a worldview built upon unbiblical falsehoods.

Should I see it?
Although “The Shack” is clearly not a “Christian movie,” that fact alone does not disqualify it from being viewed by Bible-believing Christians.  After all, you have probably seen dozens and maybe even hundreds of movies that are not explicitly Christian – I know I have.  Christians are called to engage the culture with biblical discernment, and to let God’s word be our guide when we evaluate the images, messages, and ideas that go into our minds and hearts.  Just because a movie isn’t “Christian” isn’t a good enough reason to not engage it – at least in my way of thinking.  Instead, I would advise believers not to see “The Shack” for two very different, very important reasons. 

First, although “The Shack” is demonstrably not a Christian film, it is portrayed as one.  This means that there are potentially millions of people who have either read the book or seen the movie and believe themselves to be engaging Christian truths and ideas.  This is not the case, and is in fact much more deceptive and dangerous than ideas and truth claims that are clearly unchristian.  Christians have been and will be duped by this book/movie into believing that the theology and worldview espoused by it is biblical and accords with traditional Christian faith.  However, as I’ve stated several times, it does not.  The fact that this movie does not espouse sound Christian theology and yet masquerades as being faithful to the Bible makes it dangerous and, in my opinion, makes it unwatchable by a Christian audience.  For this reason, I would advise you not to see it.

A second – and related – reason I would advise you not to see “The Shack” is that it can easily lead you astray.  The movie deals with very emotional subject matter, and it can be easy for our emotions to influence our engagement with truth claims.  Put simply, this movie will tempt you to believe errant theology and wrong ideas about God, salvation, sin, and human beings.  It would be unwise to purposely expose yourself to such temptations.  The easiest and most obvious way to remove the temptation to believe false doctrine is to not see the movie.

Conclusion
While many have said that “The Shack” is a Christian movie, it clearly is not.  While this fact alone may not be enough to dissuade us from seeing it, the reality that it is being promoted as a Christian movie makes it a dangerous film, and I would advise Christians to avoid it.  Instead, check out the Lego Batman movie.  My son recommends it. 

Risen: A Movie Review

A year or two ago, my wife, my two sisters, and my brother-in-law all went to see the movie Noah.  I was excited to see the movie, as it looked exciting and dramatic and its subject matter was derived from the Bible.  I left the movie utterly disappointed, mostly because I thought the story recorded in the Bible was more interesting than the one they cooked up for the movie (the same is true, but even more so, for the movie Exodus: Gods and Kings).  There were some parts of the movie that I liked, and some that I thought were artful and beneficial ways of telling the story.  But overall, the big biblical epics that Hollywood has produced have been, in my opinion, less than satisfying mostly because they have diverged from the biblical text to such a large degree.

Making a Christian movie that is simultaneously good and faithful to the biblical text is a difficult task, however, and I'm usually willing to give most Christian movies a lot of leeway in that regard.  Unfortunately, it usually seems that most Christian movies can't be both good and biblical - usually it seems that they are either one or the other: they are very biblical (but not what you'd call a good movie - here I defer to the cheeseball factor), or they are good and have a high production value, but are not at all biblical (see: Noah and Exodus: Gods and Kings for example).

Today, I saw a movie that broke the Christian-Movie-Mold, and was both a fantastic movie and was, for the most part, very faithful to the biblical text. (See the trailer for the movie here.)

I was one of a movie theater full of pastors who was invited to a pre-screening of the movie Risen.  I plan to give a full synopsis of the film, so if you don't want to spoil the story for yourself, you'll want to stop reading soon (I'll give you a warning before I get into the actual story).  But suffice it to say, the movie was very good.  It was very biblical, very well done, and a great story (with an almost non-existent cheeseball factor).  I highly recommend it.  It would be good for most people to see, although it is rated PG-13, and for good reason.  There is a violent battle scene at the beginning of the film, and many people are stabbed.  Immediately following the initial violence is the scene of the crucifixion, which is also a bit rough, but is in no way comparable to the level of violence and gore of The Passion of the Christ.  The crucifixion scene in Risen is far less gory and violent in comparison.  After these two opening scenes, there is very little violence to speak of in the rest of the film,  although the story revolves around a search for the (supposedly) dead body of Jesus, so there are several corpses shown as the search goes on, and some of the corpses are somewhat gruesome in appearance.  As far as language is concerned, there are no coarse words used throughout the film.

The two films I mentioned earlier - Noah and Exodus: Gods and Kings - both used the Bible as a starting place for their stories, and then added all kinds of extra stories and events to the biblical accounts, presumably to make the stories more interesting and/or dramatic.  The cost of doing this, however, is the sacrifice of the actual biblical text and the story contained therein.  To me, this did not help the stories in either movie, and in fact, detracted from my appreciation of them.  The genius of Risen is that it brings a completely unique story to the table - that of a search for the supposedly dead body of Jesus amidst rumors of his resurrection - and somehow remains very close to the biblical texts.  The balance struck between biblical text and fictional story was, to me, masterful.  I had a few quibbles here and there (see below), but they were exceptionally minor.

Now, with that being said, on to a synopsis of the movie (so if you don't want it spoiled, now is the time to stop reading).

The movie opens with a group of Roman soldiers in the midst of a battle with a group of presumably Jewish Zealots, led by none other than the recently-released Barabbas.  The movie presumes Barabbas as a member of the Zealots (a Jewish group that allegedly used what are akin to acts of terror against the Romans for their occupation of Israel).  Clavius, a Roman Tribune, is in command of the troops, who ultimately capture Barabbas after the brief battle, whom Clavius immediately executes.  Before his execution, Barabbas tells Clavius that "When the Messiah comes, Rome will be nothing!"  Clavius, of course, is unconvinced and quickly dispatches Barabbas.

Upon his return to the praetorium (Pilate's base of operations), Clavius is sent to "end" a crucifixion already in progress by breaking the legs of the crucified.  Clavius doesn't realize it, but this is the crucifixion of Jesus.  Like a dutiful soldier, Clavius goes to the crucifixion and puts an end to it, without giving it a second thought.  But before the bodies are taken down from the crosses, Joseph of Arimathea arrives with a document that allows him to claim the body of Jesus and bury him in his own tomb.

By the end of the day, the Sanhedrin has visited Pilate and asked him to seal the tomb and put guards outside of it, for fear that Jesus' disciples will steal his body and thereby create a resurrection myth which will only serve to rile up the people.  Pilate begrudgingly agrees with their reasoning and he instructs Clavius to see to it, which he does.  The tomb is sealed with a stone that requires seven men to roll it into place.  Furthermore, the stone is bound with rope and sealed with a tamper-proof wax seal, and two men are left to guard the tomb.  Here the film is somewhat unrealistic (although it's not a big deal), as the Bible says that Pilate set "a guard of soldiers" over the tomb (see Matthew 27.65).  This number almost certainly would have been more than two - probably more like a dozen.  After all, what good would two soldiers do if a mob of angry, riled up followers came in the middle of the night to steal the body?  So the notion that only two soldiers were left to guard the tomb is almost certainly wrong.  But again, this is a minor detail and does not upset the story at all, in my opinion.

On the third day after the death of Jesus - you guessed it - the stone is found to be rolled away, the seal broken, and the tomb empty.  Clavius inspects the tomb and discovers the "Shroud of Turin" among the grave clothes (Note: this, to me, is the biggest cheeseball moment in the movie, but it was very easy to overlook).  The Jewish leaders are in a panic, as they are certain that this will create an uprising, and Pilate is inclined to agree.  Therefore, in order to quell any kind of uprising and to squash the rumors that Jesus had risen from the dead, he tasks Clavius with the job of finding the mortified body of the Nazarene, and to do whatever he has to do in order to accomplish this task.  Clavius reluctantly agrees to the assignment, although he seems to find it rather a troublesome, irksome task.

The first people he tracks down in his investigation are the two guards who were at the tomb.  But the guards have been given temporary sanctuary by the Jewish leaders, as the leaders have bribed them to tell a certain story, and in so doing have guaranteed their safety, as they would have certainly come under punishment from their superiors for having allowed the body to be "removed."  One solider whom Clavius interrogates gives him the rehearsed lines that the Jewish leaders have told him to say, but Clavius isn't buying it - he knows that something is up.  He orders all bodies who have expired within the last week to be exhumed and examined - especially those who have been crucified - and all those who have stated publicly that Jesus has risen from the dead to be arrested and interrogated.

From here, the movie takes on a "Law & Order" feel, as Clavius begins to interrogate those who claim that Jesus has risen from the dead.  But in all of his interrogations, he has yet to question an actual disciple of Jesus.  They are all in hiding, and most of the people he talks to are tight-lipped about revealing their location.  Finally, he bribes a man who gives up the location of Bartholomew, whom Clavius quickly locates and arrests (Note: there is a small cheeseball factor with the character of Bartholomew, as he seems to be something of a hippie, but again, this is easy to overlook).  Also in this process, Clavius discovers that a woman named Mary Magdalene has been saying that Jesus has risen.  Clavius goes to the barracks and asks some of the common soldiers if any of them know who Mary Magdalene is, which many of them do, implying that they have visited her because she is a prostitute.  While this is definitely the prevailing opinion of Mary Magdalene's profession in Christendom, there is actually no biblical evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.  Nevertheless, the story presumes that she was, and so Clavius is able to identify and locate her because many of his soldiers have presumably taken advantage of her services.  She is likewise arrested and interrogated by Clavius, and she challenges him to accept the truth that Jesus truly has risen from the grave.

Finally, Clavius is tipped off to the location of the rest of Jesus' disciples, and he and several other Romans storm a village, searching from house to house.  Clavius is told that the disciples are in an upper room of a specific building, so he ascends the stairs and dramatically pushes open the door with the tip of his sword, ready for battle.  What he finds are all 11 disciples, with a twelfth man in their midst.  He immediately recognizes the twelfth man as the same one whose crucifixion he oversaw several days previous.  He is stunned by this sight, and calls off his men, preventing them from seeing what he has seen.  He tells them to return to base, and he stays with the disciples and Jesus.  In a moment, however, Jesus vanishes, and Mary remembers that he told her to tell the disciples to meet him on a mountain in Galilee.  (Note: here there is a mashup of biblical texts, particularly Matthew 28.10, Luke 24.36-49, and John 20.19-29.  This mashup is a bit confusing, and probably would have been better left out, but again, it does not hinder the story much at all, nor the overall faithfulness of the movie to scripture, at least in my opinion.)

Clavius is so astounded by the fact that the corpse he had been looking for is actually alive and well (and bearing the marks of the manner of his death) that he goes with the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee on the mountain.  In doing so, he deserts from his military obligations and becomes himself the subject of pursuit of the Roman army.  So with centurions hot on his trail, he flees with the disciples, who make a daring escape from a Roman pursuit.  Once in Galilee, Clavius and the disciples find themselves on the seashore with no one there waiting for them.  They don't know what else to do, so they decide to go fishing, making way for the account of John 21.1-14. (Note: there is an extra-biblical scene depicted immediately after the narrative of John 21.1-14 in which Jesus heals a man with a horrible skin condition.  Clavius is talking with Bartholomew, who reveals that Jesus had told the disciples many times that he would die and rise again, but they didn't really believe him.  "Then why did you follow him?" Clavius asks.  And then Jesus heals the man with the horrible skin condition, and Bartholomew says, "That's why."  While this healing isn't recorded in scripture, I found its use in the story to be dramatic and adding to the conversation between Clavius and Bartholomew.)

That night, Clavius has a heart-to-heart conversation with Jesus, in which he admits to Jesus that "I was there, at your death."  "I know," Jesus responds.  "I helped," Clavius confesses.  "I know," Jesus replies.  This is as close to the message of the gospel as the film gets.  It does a superb job of faithfully, biblically recounting the historical events of the resurrection and thereafter, but does not go into detail about why Jesus' death had to occur in God's plan of redemption, and the significance of his resurrection.  While some might find this to be disappointing - and I would agree with them in some regard - again, I do not think this was necessarily the aim of the movie, and so it does not detract from it.  Rather, the aim of the movie was to document and accentuate the resurrection as an historical event - which it more than succeeds in doing.

Early the next morning, the disciples awake to discover that Jesus is yet again not among their number.  They look off in the distance and see him just as the sun is beginning to rise.  They run to him, and he says, "I am going to prepare a place for you.  And you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and in Samaria, and to the end of the earth." (Note: this dialogue is a mashup of John 14.3 and Acts 1.8, which again, I do not find to be detrimental to the movie).  After this brief dialogue, Jesus dramatically ascends into heaven.

While the other disciples begin to part ways in order to complete the mission that Jesus has given them, Clavius also goes his own way, although he knows that he cannot go back to Rome and continue his life there because he has been changed by Jesus.  The film closes as he sets out on his own journey.

Roll credits.  Two other final notes:

1. I have found that in most depictions of Jesus on film, it is difficult to give an accurate portrayal without a significant cheeseball factor.  The actor portraying Jesus in Risen in my opinion, overcomes this common difficulty.  He is able to portray Jesus in a way that is sincere and not overly mushy or squishy.  Also, the actor chosen to play Jesus is probably the most ethnically accurate actor ever chosen to portray Jesus on film.  He is a man who appears to be of middle-eastern descent, with olive-colored skin and black hair.  This, to me, was refreshing.  The actors portraying Jesus' disciples are of similar ethnicity.

2. I think it is similarly difficult to portray the relationship between Jesus and his disciples on film.  After all, you have a plutonic relationship between Jesus and 11 men.  Portraying that relationship - again without being squishy, or depicting Jesus and his disciples as "bros" - is challenging.  Again, this film overcomes that challenge, in my opinion - particularly the relationship between Peter and Jesus.

So there you have it.  Hopefully this review was worth the hour of time it took me to write it!  It's a great film and I heartily recommend it to you.