Saint Harvey Gets Three Stars
By Geoffrey Botkin

For several years, frustrated American readers have been wondering just who in the world is discipling the writers at Christianity Today magazine. The recent CT review of Milk may hold clues - important theological clues. The review appears to reflect doctrines of an obscure religious order which uses uniquely creative theology to unchain the human spirit, respect diversity, and expiate stigmatic guilt, especially in the interpretation of popular culture.

This order and its teachings would appear to be in theological syncretism with the CT review of the Gus Van Sant movie Milk. The film glamorizes the life and legacy of California revolutionary Harvey Milk, who was murdered the year before the founding of the religious order in Milk’s political district. Now, three decades later, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is an international order with more than 35 chapters, and an influence that appears to have seduced Christian journalists with a politically correct Christianity for today.

In the same ways that the film celebrates personal irresponsibility and creative irreverence, CT praises the film as valiant and empathetic, “an inspiring tale of one man’s quest to legitimize his identity, to give hope to his community.”

It is a cruel religion that beatifies Harvey Milk. Milk’s personal theology was hatefully anti-family and anti-Christian. The freedom to which he aspired was license, to be legally free of family disciplines, Christian disciplines, and the restraints of higher law. CT seems to write with a freedom Harvey Milk only dreamed about, legitimizing in print twisted theological doctrines, somehow made valid because they are portrayed with artistic passion.

Christianity Today gives Milk three out of four stars. Why not four? According to the reviewer, the film is full of passion. But not quite enough for the Christian moviegoer. The main criticism we find of director Van Sant is that the film is “too safe.” After all, the review seems to suggest, sophisticated Christian movie watchers are cool with unsafe. Give us more unsafe.

Back in February, CT lamented the effects of the Hollywood writers’ strike. “The strike has brought the film and television industry to a standstill...and angered fans across the world now deprived of their favorite television shows.” The article then praised Christians who were trying to get Hollywood back into business. After all, how can Christians prove their theological and cultural sophistication without a continued diet of unsafe Hollywood movies?

What has Christianity Today done with the soteriology of safe? What does the Savior think of professing Christians who revel in those things from which they were saved?