MovieChat Forums > The Preacher's Wife (1996) Discussion > Problems with the Theology

Problems with the Theology

posted 16 years ago by Swill_Merchant
11 replies | jump to latest

Surely the makers of this film do not believe that humans go to heaven and become angels. As we all know, angels were created by God as his first companions, and he created humans much later. It is universally agreed among all religions that believe in them that angels have no sexual feelings, no bodies, no gender, and can love only God. They are NOT former humans who have returned from heaven for a visit from earth. Angels like Clarence, John Travolta's "Michael" and the Denzel Washington character in "The Preacher's Wife" represent just plain sloppy theology from Hollywood.

[–] cheldove 16 years ago

Lighten Up!! It was a heart-warming movie. It's not that serious.

[–] SellaSellyBowBelly 9 years ago

Unfortunately, most people are impressionable and believe what they see on TV. Many people nowadays believe that their loved ones became angels after death, and they got that idea from Hollywood.

Also, Dudley asks Julia to do a palm reading. That is against Judaism and Christianity. One of God's angels would never enterain anything of the occult. But most uneducated people wouldn't catch that, and think palm reading is harmless. It is not spiritually harmless. But most people are influenced by what they choose for entertainment without realizing it, especially children who take the world much more literally and grow up watching movies over and over and learn how to behave in the world and how to think based on their favorite movies without critically thinking about what they are viewing and learning.

[–] WilliBerg 9 years ago

Did the angels tell you this personally?!

[–] losewithmolly 16 years ago

It's a very feel good theory, and everyone likes to feel good. Religion that makes them feel bad is not what they want.

That's why a lot of people belong to Methodist churches. LOL!

Yours in Christ,
~Molly~

[–] Howlin Wolf 15 years ago

Artistic licence - Films made primarily to entertain rather than to inform use it all the time.

Do you like having sex? Then DON'T buy a Nintendo!

[–] Kasper_Gutman 13 years ago

"Surely the makers of this film do not believe that humans go to heaven and become angels. As we all know, angels were created by God as his first companions, and he created humans much later," -Roger Ebert.

Here's the next line since you cut out the joke. " presumably after tiring of companions who never lied." -Roger Ebert Dec 13, 1996.

It sucks a bit that you didn't give credit to the original writer but it's worse, in my opinion, that the context was changed to be a little harsher.

[–] johandav 13 years ago

"It is universally agreed among all religions that believe in them that angels have no sexual feelings, no bodies, no gender, and can love only God."

While I agree that the theology in the film is faulty in having the angel be a deceased human being (and I agreed with it when I first heard Roger Ebert complain about that on the old Siskel and Ebert show), I disagree with the quotation above. Angels can also love themselves, power and pride. That's where demons - who are fallen angels - come from.

"Santa's tenacious jolliness is tested when he's treed by a coon hound."[/i]

[–] lynsey_poushay 13 years ago

This was a movie. Not a theology lecture. Same way James Bond and Jurassic Park are just imaginary.

[–] Genlgyjp 12 years ago

I understand what the OP is saying about the theology. I could also easily look past that, if it wasn't for one thing:

In both this movie, and It's a Wonderful Life, it appears the angels are newbies at helping people. Why would God pick a less experienced angel, as opposed to a more experienced one? Ok, I suppose you could argue that this is how an angel learns how to help people continuously, but I don't feel comfortable knowing that. Let's say I was in a tight spot, and asked God to help me out, and he sent one of his less well informed angels or newer angels to help me. Wouldn't that be sort of insulting?

Also, wouldn't God continuously be sending telepathic messages, or something so that the angels don't appear to be out of sorts when helping us?

Just my thoughts.

[–] tyshimah3 11 years ago

no, it wouldn't be insulting because you could have not gotten any help in the first place. I'd take any helpful angel, experienced or not.
"telepathic messages" from God? sais pas.

**Michael.JACKSON**

[–] mariomonsieur (316) 2 months ago

It was a hallucination from an angel. He only thought he could be like human and it's within God's power to assign a humanoid type of temporary possession.

It'd take some contortions but theologically believable. Not many Baptist will but very spiritually inclined ones.