After three action-hero blockbusters (Spidermans (Spidermen?) 1-3), cult director Sam Raimi (Evil Dead 2) is back to his old ways with “Drag Me to Hell”, which, not being a fan of gore, I will probably never see.
The torments the poor young woman suffers sometimes seem a little excessive compared with the relative smallness of her crime — she’s hardly a Bernie Madoff — and that’s part of Mr. Raimi’s intention. “This is a young woman who thinks she’s a good person, but she acts out of greed,” he explained. “That’s what seems relevant — the greed. I tried to make her someone you identify with, because at the moment she has to make her choice, I want the audience to make that choice with her. They sin with her. They know they’re culpable, and now” — he lowered his voice so it sounded like the voice-over of a horror movie trailer — “now they know they’re going to be punished.”
In preaching, we often try to do the same thing, namely to coax people, by way of examples, into an admission of their own guilt, their own suffering, under the Law. That being said, we (hopefully) have something different to offer – not punishment, but grace.
COMMENTS
16 responses to “Sam Raimi on "Drag Me to Hell" (and Preaching)”
Leave a Reply
I have been waiting for months for this movie to come out! I will be one of the first in line.
Things are getting a little boring around this blog on the “comment” front, so I will start a fight to make things interesting.
There is a lot of talk and sermon illustration material floating around here about “the law” in a generalized, fuzzy sense of “some external authority figure telling me what to do.” The “law”, in this generalized sense, is seen as “bad” and to be rejected in favor of something called “the gospel.” “The gospel” means that I don’t have to do what I am being told to do, because Jesus says I don’t and died on the cross so that now nobody gets to tell me what to do anymore, so there.
That may be some kind of law/gospel but it ain’t Martin Luther’s law/gospel. The Law for Luther is a good thing, in which God tells you what you should be doing because He Da Man and knows what’s best for you. Luther embraced the Law as good and holy. He also insists that the Law brings you Death, but a Death that is the only gateway to real Life.
Luther was not in an extended adolescent pique over God or his daddy telling him what to do. In fact, Luther had such high regard for God’s holy and good law BECAUSE it brought him death to self and showed his need of a Savior.
The following is from Luther’s “Treatise Against Antinomians”:
“Good God! will not men endure it, when the holy Church acknowledgeth her sins, believes the remission of sins, asks in the Lord’s Prayer, the forgiveness of sins? But how come we to know what sin is, if there be no Law, nor conscience? And where shall we learn what Christ is, and what he hath done for us? if we could not know, what the Law is, which he hath fulfilled, or what sin is, for which he hath satisfied? And though we should not stand in need of the law for our part, but could pull it out of our hearts (which yet is impossible) notwithstanding there is a necessity of preaching it in respect of Christ (which also is done, and must be done) that the world may know, what he hath either done or suffered for us. For who could know, what, and wherefore Christ hath suffered for us, if nobody could tell, what sin was, or the law?”
God’s law is not to be confused with, nor is it to be analogized to, the world’s various and fickle “laws.” One is a holy command producing true moral guilt, while the other is an illegitimate demand producing only neurosis.
God loves us in our neurosis by showing us that the world’s demand that produces it is bogus, and God removes our guilt by showing us that His demand (the Law) although far more terrible, has been fully met by an equally terrible death.
And, by the way, I think this movie and post are trying to get at and deal with true moral guilt, based on the good and holy and deadly Law of God, and, as a result, offer the Gospel of God.
Michael, if you think we’re all a bunch of antinomians, you’re misinterpreting us, especially in your second little paragraph. I don’t think anything of the sort, that the law no longer applies to me or that Jesus says I don’t have to do the law. What an untrue characterization. And of course we differentiate between the particularites of the law, and differences between a cop and God, etc. But we are more interested in the law’s reception by rebelious human nature and contemporary examples of that reception, thereby revealing the current relevance of the (seemingly lost) 2nd Use.
I hope noone else picks up the ball on this thread, to comment or defend against your straw man brush strokes. I like “boring on the comment front”. 😉
I completely agree that the Law is, in Paul’s words, “good and right and holy” and that the problem lies within us, in our reactivity to the Law, our tendency to either rebel against it or use it for self-justification or both.
I also agree that we should no confuse God’s Law with little, worldly “laws”, like the need to be thin or successful of whatever.
That being said, I think that there is a correlation between God’s Law and worldly laws, in that they both produce suffering and guilt, and we ultimately cannot live up to either, so talking about the little “laws” can be a good point of contact, because everyone, Xian or non-, knows exactly what you’re talking about when you talk about the law and how it makes us feel.
I’ll make a point, mostly for the sake of argument, that discussion of “laws” in terms of social convention can a little trite at times. Now on one hand, it is not trite. Take, for example, discussions about body image, weight, etc. that plague so many of us, particularly young women. That is serious, and thanks be to God for those who proclaim the Gospel in that situation.
On the other hand, there is a tendency, I think, to look at the “law” in a very patronizing sort of way. So if someone feels judged because they don’t buy organic produce (or because they do buy it), then they need to be reminded that the Gospel frees them from judgment, yada yada yada. Well that’s true theologically, and while I grant that there are many among us (myself included) who are tender-hearted and need to hear the unqualified Gospel, I do think there are times when it is neither wrong nor uncharitable to say “move on and deal with it.”
And if we really want to open a bag of worms, yes, we’re free from the law and sin and death, but ideas have consequences and what we believe and do is often very, very important.
I know that this is a fire that doesn’t need to be stoked…but a quick response to Matt seems appropriate: we do have two uses of the law: the first says what you do is important (eat organic because it’s healthier) and the second says EVERY THOUGHT IN YOUR HEAD is important (your body is a temple, and if you don’t eat organic, you’re betraying yourself and the earth). I think all the contributors to this blog would agree with you that things you do are very important, but we (if I might speak for them) would argue that since everything you do and think is SO important, the only way to survive is to consider them bought and paid for, and therefore, in a sense…unimportant in the grand scheme.
Nick – excellent clarifications! Many thanks.
Michael, please forgive my uncharitable tone? Your read on Mockingbird just struck me as incorrect, and as a typically, what I would call “Calvinist” misunderstanding of our position. To better understand our position, if that’s something that interests you you might find a copy of Karl Holl’s “The Reconstruction of Morality”, which brilliantly discusses how a Christian faith built upon two instead of three uses of the law makes sense of ethics. It’s a very brilliant and inspiring book, and I’ll whet your appetite with some juicy quotes:
“Overly minute attention to the petty necessarily leads to failure in the face of the great and important.”
“Whoever worries about a possible sin will surely fall victim to it.”
“(Luther) could only verify the fact that evil is never conquered through direct combat but only indirectly, through strengthening the opposite good.”
“The Spirit propels people so that they cannot do otherwise.”
“If it was true that even the believer sins in every good work, then how could inner certitude be attained? Every moment there was the possibility that one had sinned or was at least on the verge of sinning, and this possibility gave occasion to a restless self-analysis and a casuistic anxiety (–Tell me about it! DZ? SMZ?–) similar to that of the more sensitive members of the Catholic church (read: Jantzenists). From personal experience Luther knew this mood full well (phew!). However, he also encountered it among those who had learned from him, even in his closest circle, in men like Melanchthon and Weller. Whenever he saw others suffering from this problem, he always — and for good reason — put considerable (underline) humor into his advice to them. But jesting concealed a deep earnestness and a well-considered purpose. Luther showed how to conquer the difficulty by advising that the anxious thoughts be courageously thought through to the end. There is not only the possibility that one is sinning or has sinned but this possibility is an actual reality. Yet it is even more of a reality that God nevertheless approaches the sinner, whome he wants to use in his service, even though guilty of killing a thousand in one day. For this reason it is correct to regard oneself unreservedly as the sinner one really is, but just as unreservedly to find courage to live and act in the mercy of God and in the strength Christ gives to the Christian. The apprehension of reality is what saves us. (underline) The apprehension of reality is what saves us. Whoever batles only with possibility has not yet become fully honest — despite all apparent earnestness (i.e., doubts their justification, assuming it in some sense to be based upon their own performance). Some arrogance is still there, since one is unwilling to admit that as a human being one is always in the process of becoming — and that means always a sinner.”
John, et al.– Thanks for your comments. And John, I don’t think that you or the others posting here are Antinomians. I am very familir with Forde, etc., so I know full well where this is coming from, and I agree with most of it, as if that mattered. As for “straw men”, Forde is the master manufacturer of those, and I say that even though I agree with him completely in his criticism of the “theology of glory” and advocacy for the “theology of the cross.” And, Forde says some pretty nasty things about the theologians of glory, but we don’t see them that way because we are not in their shoes!
But that really doesn’t bother me in the least. I think a little “conflict” is a good thing, and helps all of us clarify exactly what we think. Luther didn’t exactly shy away from it. If not for conflict, we would be missing about 75% of the NT.
To me anyway, the comments in response have been very helpful, so thanks to all.
I like bare knuckles among friends. It helps clarify arguments and thought processes.
And, by the way Michael, somebody needs to give you a haircut. You are way too old to have long hair.
Browder, you are not my mama and I won’t take that “hair cut” law from you, even if I sometimes have my doubts about the “Third Use.” What the heck are you talking about anyway?
Oh yeah, and since you are about to get married, welcome to the third use, buddy. (don’t let Kari read that)
you can ask my wife about how well the third use works:)
I read that Michael! 🙂
Kari, Now I am in trouble. From your photo, I now have proof that there is a God and that He is full of grace, for David Browder at least. I can’t wait to meet you in person!
Good stuff everyone! Browder, I love your comment about bare knuckles:)