Discussing
The Conjuring’s Fire-and-Brimstone Sermon

Can't wait to see this. Three of my kids have, and I intended to this weekend but life got in the way. But, I did have a chance to meet the Hayes brothers a few weeks ago in LA and had a great conversation. I'll save those thoughts for another day. So, my comment here is not a critique of the movie or the movie-makers' intents, but on the concept your review, offered without the burden of having actually seen it myself ;)

I agree that "Fire and Brimstone" sermons are, at best, only fractionally effective - and only effective at all when communicated within the context of the message of forgiveness and grace. But a movie is not a sermon. I don't believe that every piece of art needs to be inclusive of the entire Gospel message in order to be useful. Some times a good "turn or burn" message is exactly what a person needs to hear. When I think of the types of people who frequent movies like this I think that maybe a simple, binary message about the reality of evil and its eternal consequences could be very appropriate. On a more lighthearted level I think that was (and actually still is) the value of Alice Cooper's work.

I do hope that anyone sent seeking deeper information about the God of the Bible finds it in the form of well-formed, lovingly articulated, theologically comprehensive understanding of the Gospel that is experienced contextually within the realm of transformative community. But if some hyped-up, amoral, post-modernized teenager who has been ravenously consuming the relativistic drivel of most modern horror flicks, (the "good" guys are usually worse than the "bad" guys,) is jarred by The Conjuring into thinking about good and evil in a new, and more truthful way, then that should be seen as a good thing, right? It can take a long time to judge a piece of art's "effectiveness" after all.

What I couldn't really tell, though, was whether or not you enjoyed it. Was it an interesting story? Was it well told? Two of my kids loved it, one was just so-so... You say "It's a good one, to be sure..." but I'd love to know that if it's NOT a sermon, was it at least a good story?

Good questions, John. It's certainly possible the type of teenager you describe would respond to The Conjuring's clear delineation of good and evil in a way that would cause them to seriously consider the spiritual. I don't think that this delineation is that uncommon in horror films though, especially those involving demons and exorcisms, so I'm still curious as to why The Conjuring is being held up as particularly evangelistic.

As for how the movie holds up in general, I think it's an impeccably crafted piece of genre filmmaking/storytelling. I talk about this more on my personal website if you're interested: http://www.larsenonfilm.com/the-conjuring

Ah - I didn't realize it was "being held up as particularly evangelistic." Can you point me to some of those articles? I'm curious.

I was similarly interested in The Exorcism of Emily Rose a few years back. There does seem to be a difference between the general, formulaic "good vs evil" paradigm of many modern horror flicks and a few that seem to really believe in the overwhelming power of good. When folks with a specific Christian worldview tackle this genre (or art in general) - it seems to have the potential to be something really useful and interesting or just more propaganda.

If I didn't have so many writing deadlines maybe I could actually SEE this thing ;)

That Religion News Piece (http://www.religionnews.com/2013/07/24/can-a-horror-film-lead-people-to-god/) discusses its evangelistic potential, including the faith-based marketing campaign that's selling it as such to religious audiences.

Maybe WB marketed to the Christian audience because as of yet, it's still a very lucrative crowd in America? A professor once told me that companies that aren't necessarily Christian will create "Christian" products because they know this market exists...and buys. This might account for the wide range of quality we see at our local Christian bookstores. On my part, I've worked at an ad agency where non-Christians worked on designing/advertising Christian books for a reputable publishing company on numerous occasions.

If the fiscal climate for films is as tepid as people are saying, I can understand why WB would try to milk The Conjuring for all its got.

For what it's worth, it's been written that the language Edwards used in the "Sinners" sermon was "in vogue" at the time and that there was an experimental element to the sermon's delivery.

You're absolutely right about the studio's financial motive: from their perspective, Christians are a market to be tapped. This strategy became common in the wake of The Passion of the Christ, to the point that some major studios created their own divisions aimed at the evangelical market. At worst, this can result in pandering, but I don't think that is what's going on with The Conjuring as a movie (perhaps because of its screenwriters' own faith background). How it's being marketed is another matter.

By what historical evidence are you pronouncing Jonathan Edwards' sermon ineffective? Have you read the historical records on how many people actually came to Christ during his outdoor sermons? Also, although his sermons were indeed "fiery," he wrote the entire text of each sermon prior to preaching, and his preaching "style" was simply to read his written sermon in a steady, calm voice. But the results are also a part of the historical record, and the reason why Edwards' era was called "The Great Awakening."

In Reply to Rick Ludwig (comment #28383)
----------------------------------------
Hi Rick,

I didn't mean to characterize the effectiveness of Edwards' sermon at the time it was given one way or the other. When I say "equally ineffective" at the end of the article, I meant that I doubt the evangelistic power of this mode of exhortation for audiences today, be it someone reading Edwards' sermon or watching The Conjuring.

Jonathan Edwards lived in a very different culture. People already had a sense of God, sin,Jesus, hell, heaven etc. They had a general knowledge of God, the God of the Bible. They knew that God is merciful and that His anger endures for a moment but his favor is for a lifetime. Furthermore, they knew that this was their moment - Their moment of repentance and coming to faith in Christ. It has always troubled me that the only thing people remember about Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening was this one sermon. Context, context, context, please. Let's look at the counter balance to Edward's preaching. Example: "Heaven, a World of Love" http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/charity16.htm