"The Invention of Lying" - A Review

The movie was a gross perversion of many things, but worst of all, the person and work of Jesus Christ.

I am ashamed that I've watched this movie. This post is intended to deter people from watching it, for the sake of the name of Jesus Christ.

Spoiler Alert

The movie starts with a general exposition narrated by the voice of the main character. He explains that the human race had not yet evolved to be able to lie. He noted that his character would be the first in the history of mankind to lie. He is unattractive and would be fired from his job as a "script writer" (i.e. an exact recollection of actual events that had happened in the past). He is fired, is accused of being a homosexual, and must leave his apartment as he lacks $800 rent. His first lie is at the bank teller when asking what to withdraw he tells her $800 knowing that he only has $300. She willingly trusts him, despite the computer in front of her telling something different.

A suicidal neighbor reveals that he lives life in despair. The main character tells him that things will get better and that he shouldn't commit suicide. The neighbor willingly believes him and stops attempting to end his life.

The main character's mother is elderly and lives in "a sad place for hopeless people". She is soon on her deathbed and comments that she is saddened by the nothingness that awaits her in death. He lies by telling her that at death she will be in the happiest place she can imagine and that she will receive her very own mansion. She dies happy, but he is overheard by doctors and nurses who willingly trust him. News spreads and crowds follow him to hear what he "knows" about what happens to people when they die. He writes a list of 10 things and posts them on 2 pizza boxes, because he lacks 2 tablets (of stone). He delivers to the world via international television broadcast that there is a man in the sky who will give everyone mansions provided they don't do 3 bad things (3 strikes and you're out, like baseball). The man in the sky is responsible for everything that happens and cannot be seen. Everyone willingly trusts the main character. Buildings resembling churches are erected as "quiet places to think about the man in the sky". At a wedding ceremony, the officiating minister wears a gold cross, which upon closer inspection is just a gold representation of the main character holding out the two pizza boxes.

The main character becomes incredibly rich by defrauding a bank, casino, and the general populace. He improves his financial situation, but the woman he wants still will not marry (or procreate with) him because he is undesirable for his genetics. He decides not to lie to her about genetics even though he has opportunity to. He becomes depressed and doesn't shave nor cut his hair, and when she later rings his doorbell to invite him to her wedding to a pompous, vain rival, he answers wrapped in a bedsheet wearing sandals, an obvious allusion to stereotypical images of Jesus.

In the end, he gets the girl. Only he and his son can lie. There is no indication that he was punished for gaining money through deception or any of the lies he told. There is not even indication that anyone ever distrusts a single thing he said.

Review

The premise of the movie seemed intriguing. What would happen in a world in which no one lied. What would be inclination of the first person to lie, and what would be the result? For these reasons I was drawn to watch this movie. Nevertheless, the following are contentions I hold with the writers of it:

Contention 1:

The idea of lying being an evolution of man. The writers of this movie reveal that they believe in some sort of evolution, with the general understanding that over time improvements are added to the human race, while disadvantages are discarded. One will notice immediately that lying is an improvement according to their theory. If lying is an improvement, what about distrust? As noted in the synopsis above, no one distrusted anything the liar said. But what is the logical outcome of a person continuously saying things that are not? It is inevitably that people would eventually come to distrust one another. Is this an advancement among members of the human race? I wonder if the writers of this movie consider that what they are marking as evolution is, in fact, degeneration? Perhaps that was their intent.

Contention 2:

A confusion of hope and dishonesty. The liar on several occasions is able to temporarily improve someone's mood who is otherwise depressed or in despair. While the intention may be commendable, the idea of helping someone by lying to them is convoluted. Apparently, the writers believe that it is impossible to have hope without also being liars. It paints a very dreary world, where we see characters who wish to commit suicide because they are unattractive and others are slaves to their own vain desires. What is odd is that by setting a world in which people only speak what is truth is that they deny the possibility that things could change. The writers seem to imply that to expect change for the better is at it's root a lie. How very pessimistic! These writers paint a very depraved view of hope, for they don't portray people as having hope until the lie enters the world. Is hope dependant upon lies by it's nature? I beg to differ. Hope can be based on truth, but not on what is visible. The author of Hebrews tells us:

Hebrews 11:1
11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

The writer's definition of a lie comes to mean anything that cannot be seen. They create a world in which having faith itself has to become a lie. They create a world in which believing in the invisible God becomes, itself, a sin.

Contention 3:

The premise of the movie's writers: "god is a lie." In their scenario, the first man to discover lying also invents a god. Everyone in that world believes him because they have no concept of a lie. In effect, the writers are concluding that religion is false. We see this in the movie in that no religious symbols (or even moral labels on behavior) exist in this world where no one lies until the main character begins to tell lies.

I'll note, the religion which the main character creates is one which is very agreeable to his own character. He creates a religion which benefits himself. This is most clearly seen when he says "the man in the sky says that you can't have sex before marriage". This is a lie, of course, as he has made up the man in the sky (per the writer's plot line). The context in which this is that his love interest has mentioned that she will likely have sex with his rival. He creates a religion which is beneficial to his needs at the time. This is, by definition, a man-made religion, which is false. Oddly enough, I do not find this point as disagreeable. If their point is only that man made religion is false, I will not disagree with them. Religion which has it's doctrinal source and object of praise in man and not in God is blasphemy. Sadly, I fear that their point is that all religion is man-made and is therefore false, which I vehemently disagree with. If they've excluded the possibility that God could possibly truly exist and would actually reveal a religion to mankind, they've fallen into serious error with eternal consequences.

Contention 4:

The inventor of lying is compared to Jesus Christ. If you didn't catch that in the synopsis above, let me repeat it: the inventor of lying is compared to Jesus Christ. Does this sound like Jesus to you? Let's compare this with Jesus's own words:

John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Jesus identifies the devil (yes, the devil, himself) as the father of lies. The devil has nothing to do with the truth; there is no truth in him. The bible tells us that lying, deceit, dishonesty, etc. are from the devil. This movie is saying that they are from Jesus. What blasphemy! Consider who Jesus is:

John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is truth! Not only is he truth, but he is THE truth. Jesus is truth, and in him there is nothing false:

John 7:16-18
16 So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. 17 If anyone's will is to do God's [5] will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. 18 The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

I am finding it hard to appropriately express what I feel toward the themes presented in this movie. I cannot find words to express the disconnect between what the writers of this film have presented and what God tells us in His Word. They are liars. The movie is a lie.

Psalm 119:163
163 I hate and abhor falsehood,
but I love your law.

Legalism: a definition

I've recently been thinking about the subject of legalism. I've come to the conclusion that no matter which branch of the body of Christ a person belongs to he will agree that legalism is wrong. Imagine going to hear a sermon and the pastor beginning by saying, "well, I hope everyone is enjoying being legalistic! Today I'm going to preach on why legalism is great". Legalism is generally held in disdain and for good reason. Legalism is contrary to Christianity. The problem I've found, though, is that legalism, while unanimously condemned is not often well understood. I've been thinking for the last few weeks on a good definition. Here's what I've got:

Legalism is one of two things:
1) an attempt at conformity to a good law for a substituted purpose
2) an attempt at conformity to a substituted law for a good purpose

Allow me to explain. Legalism is a word that has at it's root what is "legal" or "lawful". People who are legalistic either pervert a good law into something for which it was not intended OR they begin with good motives but seek to meet proper ends with an improper law. A Legalist person is aware of and concerned about law, though, which the inverse, an Anti-nomian or Licentious person would not. Biblical Christianity, in contrast to both, has an aspect of attempt at conformity to a good law for a good reason.

The Letter and The Spirit

Let's take a law: "You cannot drive over 70 MPH along X stretch of highway". This may be, and for the sake of discussion let's say that it is, a good law. A law has a letter and a spirit. The letter of this law is that it is wrong to drive at any speed greater than 70 MPH. If a person were to drive 70.000001 MPH, he or she would be breaking the letter of the law. Consider, though, that the example law is not an isolated thing. Behind the creation of this law there is an intention of whoever wrote the law. We might say, and for the sake of discussion let's conclude that, the intention, or spirit, of the law is "Do not drive in a way which puts persons or property at risk of harm or damage." This is rooted in the second greatest commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Suppose a man is driving 69.999999 MPH. He is swerving to the left and right as he weaves through traffic. He cuts off a bus full of children. To save a few seconds off of his commute, he drives through a person's front yard and flower bed. Is he obeying the letter of the law stated above? Yes. Is he doing it for the intended purpose? No. He is obeying the letter but not the spirit of the law. He is a legalist by the first definition. His utter contempt for the spirit of the law reveals the wrongness of legalism.

Suppose, now that a young woman desires to protect life and property. She learned from her parents to always drive 10 MPH below the speed limit. As she enters the highway she cautiously accelerates to 59 MPH. As people pass her traveling at speeds of 65 or 68 MPH, she smiles at them but wonders in her heart, "Why are all these people breaking the speed limit?" She finds another car going her speed and carefully paces them, preventing anyone following from going above 60 MPH. Is she being legalistic? This is where we enter the second definition of legalism, and to be completely honest this part is a bit more difficult to see the error. She is keeping the letter of the law. She is even keeping the spirit of the law to some extent. I'd say she is being legalistic, though. What makes it difficult to determine is the idea of Hedging.

Trimming the Hedges

Hedging is, simply, to impose a boundary upon one's self to help prevent transgression. Let's take the speed limit example above. If I decide that to help myself obey the law I will always drive 2 miles below the speed limit, I am building a hedge. Building a hedge for one's self is OK, provided it is for the correct intention (i.e. toward the spirit of the law). Hedges are not a problem so long as they are kept only for one's self. Hedges become legalism when the hedge is substituted for the law. This is portrayed clearly for us in Mark 7:

7:1 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash [1] their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. [2] And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches. [3]) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

The elders of the Pharisees and scribes had developed hedges to help themselves obey the letter of the law. Generations later, the hedge had been mistaken for the law it surrounded! We see the horror of this when the Pharisees accuse Jesus of leading his disciples into sin. What a bold thing to do! The Pharisees accuse Jesus, who is God, of breaking the God's law! God is perfect and cannot deny himself. We see the rebuke they receive is well warranted. By replacing God's law with man's traditions, the Pharisees were the ones who were rejecting God's law.

As followers of Christ, we need to guard against confusing our own hedges with God's perfect law. God's law is perfect as we are reminded in Psalm 19:

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, [3]reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; ... 10 More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.

Since God's law is perfect, we must not substitute our law for His. We must continually trim our hedges to make sure that they do not impede upon the spirit of His law.

The Greatest Commandment

So, how do we ensure that we are keeping the spirit of the law? What is the spirit of God's law? Jesus tells us the greatest commandment, and I do not think it is just another law to add on top of the rest, I think it is the spirit of all of God's law:

Mark 12:

28 And one of the scribes came up and ... asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

All other laws God gives are only extensions of this fundamental law: that God is one and that mankind is to love him wholly. Even the second commandment to love one another flows out of the first. We love one another because we love God. We love God because He loves us.

1 John 4:

19 We love because he first loved us.

A Guardian that is Good

The law is rooted in that we should love God. We know God first loved us because of the gospel. Paul the Apostle was quick to point out that the law should point us to the gospel. The law is good in that it drives us to Christ.

1 Timothy 1:

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, ... and whatever else is contrary to sound [3] doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Paul even calls the law our guardian, imprisoning men until they are justified by faith:

Galatians 3:

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

As Christians, we should oppose legalism. It is either a misuse of God's law or a rejection of God's law in favor of man's law. In either case, legalism destroys the laws power to draw us to Christ. If we are not drawn to Christ, we will never have love for God who is a just judge. If we have no love for God, we will be forever doomed to fail at meeting the spirit of the law: to love the holy God with the whole of our being.

on the label "Apostolic"

I've recited the Nicene Creed before. Many Christians have. In this creed, we affirm the findings of the council of Nicea, mostly which are affirmations of the Triune nature of God. It also affirms that we "believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Today, I'd like to focus on the word "Apostolic".

To be Apostolic means to agree with the Apostles. Apostle is from the Greek word, ἀπόστολος, which means "messenger, or one who is sent". The Apostles were sent with the good news of Jesus Christ. To be Apostolic means to accept the Apostle's teaching as sent from Jesus Christ, himself. Some modern Christians may jerk their knees at this. Shouldn't we follow what Jesus said? Well, yes, we should follow what Jesus said, and He said to follow the Apostles:

John 15:
20 Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.

These last words are very direct. If we keep Jesus' words, we will keep the Apostle's. To be Christian means that we must be Apostolic. We cannot claim to be followers of Jesus Christ if we do not accept those whom He sent. The question then rises, who were the Apostles? The Catholic church would rephrase the questions saying, "who are the Apostles?", and answer that they believe the archbishops and pope are Apostles. Is this accurate? Let's look into this matter:

Following verse 20 of John 15 (cited above) there are the following verses:

26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

Jesus tells the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will bear witness to Jesus first. God himself is the first witness, there is no greater witness than Him. He tells the apostles that they will bear witness with the Holy Spirit because they have been with Him from the beginning. From this, we should take note that the Apostles have had personal encounters with Jesus himself. He is speaking, at this point, to the 12 Apostles, those who shared the last meal with Him in the upper room. Judas was among these 12, but I don't think that we're to listen to Judas, as he was soon to betray Jesus:

John 13:
2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, ...

So, we're supposed to follow the 11 Apostles, right? Well, no. The 11 soon became 12 again as is recorded in Acts 1:

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, 16 “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.”

Peter suggests the 11 find a 12th from the 120 who followed them. They do so, and the criteria which they used is recorded in the verses that follow:

21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

When the 11 seek to find a 12th, they chose only from someone who had been with Jesus. It is mentioned from when Jesus was baptized by John (Mark 1) until he ascended (Acts 1:6-11). Essentially, they are only choosing among those who have witnessed all of Jesus' public ministry! The passage continues:

23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

After selecting from only those they knew had been with Jesus through it all, they narrowed it down to two, prayed for God to make the final selection, and cast lots (a way of determining God's Will, see Lev 16:8, Prov 16:33). This is recorded openly for us, so they did not make the selection privately. All together, this means that they understood that the selection of Apostles was not an action done by men, but by God. We see this same thinking when Paul speaks of his Apostleship in Galatians 1:

1:1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Remember that Paul was not one of the 12. How, then, did he become an Apostle? Did the 12 add him to their number the same way Matthias was added? As the first verse in Galatians says (quoted above), Paul is an apostle 'not from men nor through man'. He underscores later in the same chapter that He was directly called by Jesus Christ:

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. [3] 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul became an Apostle because Jesus chose him. The 12 Apostles became Apostles because Jesus chose them. Since Jesus chose them and told us to listen to them, we need to listen to them. How do we do so? Well, the way we hear the Apostle's teaching is by reading what they wrote. The Apostle Paul wrote most of the New Testament. Other parts of the New Testament were written by close followers of the Apostles. We ensure that we are paying heed to the Apostles by hearing and doing what is written in the Bible.

To reject the Apostles' writings is to reject God who ultimately sent them. Jesus speaks to this effect as he sent out the 72 in Luke 10:

16 “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Jesus even prays to The Father to for us to believe the Apostles in John 17:

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

"Save Yourself and Us!"

"You can't have your cake and eat it, too."

I heard a great sermon this morning from the Independent Reformed Church which has been recently formed in Columbia, MO (http://independentreformedchurch.org/). A point which particularly caught my attention was that Jesus had to die in order for us to be saved. He could not have saved himself and us.

Luke 23:

32 Two others, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. 33 And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. ... 39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, [4] saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

Jesus came to earth to do God's will, and it was God's will that Jesus should die for the sins of His people. When this dying thief said, "Save yourself and us", it was not a mere plea of a dying man. Consider the implications of what he said: 'If you are the Christ, you can save us however you want... it doesn't matter what God has willed... just save us and you could save yourself, too.' To do such a thing would, perhaps, save the lives of the thieves. Jesus could raise people from the dead physically, surely he could 'save' many people from dying at all. But to do so would be to deny the true salvation that Jesus came to provide. He does not save people in the flesh. He saves them to an eternal life. We will die (even Lazarus later died). Jesus had to die in the flesh to give us eternal life. The pleas of the dying thief were truly the mocking of Satan. Consider a similar dialogue Jesus had with Peter:

Matthew 16:

21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! [5] This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance [6] to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Jesus would not be tempted by the suggestions of Satan. He knew that to save His people, He would have to do so as The Father had commanded. To attempt to do so and still save his own life would have failed. He would have sinned against God. In sinning He would have been unable to fulfill God's righteous requirement. We would be without a savior.

Am I tempted by Satan's words? Do I attempt to follow Jesus' footsteps but still keep some vestiges of sin alive in my body? Do I try to save myself? I pray that God would give me strength to follow in Jesus, who has saved me, who has fulfilled God's requirements on my behalf when I never could. Praise be to God the Father and our Lord, Jesus Christ!