A Simple Review of "War Room"

Introduction

Last year, my wife and I watched the 2015 Christian film War Room, made by Alex and Stephen Kendrick. Just the usual warning of any detailed review: there are gonna be lots and lots of spoilers here. If you haven't seen the movie, and you don't want to know how it ends, if there are any twists, etc., then don't read this review. If you don't care, continue on - just don't say I didn't warn you.

It should be noted that, before watching this movie, my wife and I were big Kendrick Brothers fans. We own Flywheel, Facing the Giants, Fireproof, and Courageous on DVD and Blu-Ray (depending on the availability). I'm not hugely fond of modern "Christian" films, but the Kendrick Brothers' movies were the rare exception. If you want an example of how highly I can praise one of their films, go and read my review of their first film, Flywheel. The point of me saying all this is we didn't go in ready to bash this movie - while we had heard some questionable things about it, we had an open mind, and a past experience of glowing opinions regarding the Kendrick Brothers' work. As it turned out, watching this film was a completely different experience for us entirely.

In the DVD commentary, the Kendrick Brothers say that the point of the movie is to teach that we fight our battles in prayer before anything else. Does it live up to that? Does it live up as a movie? Let's talk about this...

Plot Summary

The story centers around a couple by the name of Tony and Elizabeth Jordan, who have a young daughter, Danielle. Tony works for a pharmaceutical company, while Elizabeth handles real estate. Not all is rosy in the Jordan household: Tony and Elizabeth are constantly fighting, mainly because Elizabeth sends money to her deadbeat brother-in-law, to Tony's disapproval. Furthermore, Danielle feels ignored by both her parents, who seem to show no interest in her lifestyle. To make matters worse, a woman at Tony's job begins to show a blatant interest in him, and he reciprocates.

Then Elizabeth goes to appraise the house of an elderly woman named Clara Williams. Clara is a widow, whose husband Leo had served in the army during the Vietnam War. Clara takes a liking to Elizabeth and invites her over for coffee. While they have coffee, Clara confronts Elizabeth about her familial and spiritual situation, and tells her that she needs to fight back not against her husband, but what's harming her marriage. At this point, Clara presents her "war room," which is a regular closet she's transformed into a literal prayer closet. At first, Elizabeth doesn't take the idea of a "war room" seriously, but soon begins to post up Bible verses on the wall, praying in earnest for much of the day, etc. Suddenly she's alerted by a friend that Tony is at a restaurant with another woman. Elizabeth responds by praying for God to prevent Tony from doing anything drastic. This results in Tony having a stomachache that prevents him from sleeping with the adulteress.

Tony discovers, by looking in Elizabeth's texts, that she knows about the dinner with the woman, though he remains silent about it. He loses his job due to mishandling numbers and keeping some of the drugs for himself, but Elizabeth remains calm and understanding throughout. After reviewing his own life, Tony repents to Elizabeth and decides to be a better husband and father. This involves him getting involved in Danielle's jump rope competition, and admitting to his bosses that he had been making money on the side. The latter conflict is resolved because Coleman, one of the company heads, is overtaken with Tony's sincere repentance, and decides to overlook the crime. The former conflict is resolved when Danielle and Tony partake in the jump rope competition and come in second place. The film ends with Clara giving a long prayer asking God to raise up people who would be faithful to him; as she speaks, we see a montage of schools, sports fields, and even the Congress building. The End.

'Murica!

Storyline

As I watched, I couldn't help but think that everything we were witnessing had been done before. I started picking up things we had already seen in previous Kendrick Brothers movies. Some out there might give the "there's no actual 'original' story" argument, but my point here is that, if you've seen the other Kendrick Brothers movies, you'll notice a ton of rehashing in this one. As I watched with my wife, we both noticed many similarities with Flywheel, Fireproof, and Courageous. Don't believe me? Let me go through some of the things we noticed...

Here were some elements from Flywheel:

• There's a business-minded dad who is disrespectful to his wife, ignores his kid, hates going to church, and commits dishonest tactics at his workplace.
• The business-minded dad, after deciding to become a better Christian, wants to restore the wrong he did to those affected by his dishonest business practices. 
• There's a scene where a parent overhears their child telling another kid how much they don't respect their parents.

Here were some elements from Fireproof:

• An elderly person comes into the main character's life and saves the day with some practical idea.
• Best buds are seen sitting around a weight room, exercising and talking about the facts of life, including marital difficulties.
• The main character's best friend is a Christian that serves as his voice of reason and conscience.
• There's a "plot twist" involving the background of the elderly person and how the practical idea was related to their own personal life.

And here are some elements from Courageous:

• A character delivering drugs (in this case, legal drugs) keeps some to himself for profit, and later has to face up to the consequences for it.
• A character is faced with a tough moral question about their job which might lead them to getting fired or worse. (Though in this case, the character already was fired.)
• At the end of the movie, a character gives a big speech calling on people to action based on the moral of the film.

Ultimately, it comes across like the Kendrick Brothers wanted to promote "war room" theology, and just mixed plot elements from their previous films together to shoehorn it into a script. Indeed, much of the film feels like a bunch of ideas or elements strung together, with little time for the plot points to develop. This actually ends up hurting the movie, because you're constantly reminded that the previous films handled these issues better.

Here would be a good time to lament one of my biggest complaints about the movie: it just gets boring. It keeps dragging things out with one thing after another, to the point that you sit there wondering when it's going to end. The worst part is Danielle's jump rope competition - oh yeah, they show you all of it. It never felt like this important subplot that had to be resolved, and it doesn't offer anything for the characters other than for Danielle to proudly say "This is my dad!" (And even by then, we've already established she and her dad were on better terms, so it was completely unnecessary.) Even after this part is concluded, the film continues. I was seriously reminded of that episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 where Tom Servo asks, "Shouldn't this be over?" Some internet reviews have opined that the film feels like they finished the main conflict twenty minutes early, then padded the rest of the movie with filler - that's not too far off a description. Even during the final speech, you'll be screaming, "Kendrick Brothers! Let my people go!"

Actual Photo: My wife and I waiting for War Room to end

If you want to know just how disinterested in the story I was, let me tell a little anecdote. Shortly after the mugging scene (see below), two policemen speak with Elizabeth and Clara. One of them is played by Ben Davies, who also played the rookie deputy in Courageous. I was reminded of that character's story, with the cheerleader he had gotten pregnant, and the little girl he now wanted to be daddy to. I started to talk to my wife about how I hope he and the woman ended up together, and he did become a real father to his daughter. I started talking about how awesome the final shot of him stretching out his arm to offer a present to the girl was. I then realized that I had become much more emotionally invested in another movie than the movie I was actually watching - and all because of a minor character who's in there for a few seconds.

Most interesting character in the whole movie...and he's barely in it

That's how bored I was.

Characters

Usually in a Kendrick Brothers movie, I can relate to the characters, or feel for them. Here, their usually strong delivery simply falls flat, or doesn't succeed at all.

Let's talk about Tony. What do we know about him early on? He yells at his wife, ignores his kid, and is committing adultery. True, the main character in Flywheel (sans the adultery bit) did that too, but there was still some humanity about him; you could tell he was an everyday man who was struggling to support a family and a business, but he had begun to forget the authority of God, and hence the rest of his life was falling apart. By contrast, Tony gets very little character development for most of the movie - heck, we have zero reason to believe he's even a true Christian. The only real character development he gets is in the last third of the film, and it comes across as incredibly forced. You're ultimately only supposed to like him because, hey, he repented, and this is an Evangelical movie, and you're supposed to like someone after they repent. This is especially unfortunate because TC Stallings, who plays Tony (and who played the gang leader in Courageous), can indeed act, and in the few parts of the film where he's allowed to let Tony breathe, he does a good job.

Now let's also talk about Elizabeth. We're supposed to sympathize with her for her struggles. We're supposed to care about her. We're supposed to feel bad for what her husband's doing, and how her family is. The truth is, as my wife and I watched the film, neither of us felt any sympathy for her. I can list two big reasons for this:

First, Priscilla Shirer, who plays Elizabeth, just isn't that great of an actress. Her delivery isn't believable, even in the scenes where she's supposed to be showing some subtlety. For example, when her daughter admits that she's unsure if Elizabeth loves her, Priscilla Shirer barely shows any change of reaction, whereas most parents would surely have been at least a little bit affected. (I know I would feel absolutely heartbroken.) In all her crying scenes, it basically amounts to her staring at the camera with a blank expression while a single tear goes down her cheek. In the more comedic moments, her delivery is deadpan, and warrants no laughs. In fact, the only laughs from scenes with her are given by other characters. (For example, the delivery man and his "take your breath away" line.) It's not that she's the worst actress ever; it's just that, since you're supposed to care for Elizabeth, her acting doesn't help the other problems. What astounds me is the Kendrick Bros. say she did a great job, and Shirer herself was happy with the results. Why either of them came to this conclusion, I don't know.

Second, Elizabeth's sins and faults are on blatant display, and yet are never really repented of or rebuked, either by herself or others. She's disrespectful to her husband, who does have legitimate concern for how she's using their money without telling him. Her daughter admits that she feels just as ignored by her mom as she does her dad. Elizabeth admits her and Tony aren't sexually active, suggesting she doesn't show any sexual interest in him (and it's not like Fireproof, where they establish the husband was unrepentantly looking at pornography, hence the wife's own physical disinterest). She acts bitter and selfish when upset, as shown by one scene where she frightens Danielle's friend at the dinner table by repeatedly slamming her fork down on the plate. Point is, she has a lot of character to change, and yet the only fault given to her directly is "You don't pray enough." That's basically it. The only thing that comes close to a repentance scene is when her daughter admits she's unsure of Elizabeth's love, and mother and daughter give each other a hug. By contrast, Tony repents to Elizabeth, repents to Danielle, and repents to his boss. It's not that Tony didn't have anything to repent of, it's just that War Room has the same fault that many cite against Fireproof: all the focus is on the sins of the husband, and it's he who must repent, while the wife gets off with a slap on the wrist.

Some here might protest that Elizabeth does change during the movie; and indeed, she shows Tony more respect after she begins her prayer closet, rather than ragging on them all the time. It won't be denied something goes on with her, but there's still no visible repentance from her. That's it - a character change. Tony could have simply done a character change as well, but instead he's made to be in tears and apologize for everything he's done the entire movie. Elizabeth, by contrast, gets to skirt all this. Heck, even Clara, when talking about her deceased husband, talks about all the things she had to forgive him for, yet never talks about any of her own sins or transgressions. It's all on the men: men are the sinners who need to repent; women just need to change their attitudes, and they're good.

(By the way, before anyone wants to respond to this with "Thanks for mansplaining," I want to point out that, as we watched, the harshest criticisms against Elizabeth came not from my own masculine lips, but from the lips of my wife. She, even more than me, thought Elizabeth had to repent, and was failing in her role as mother and wife.)

Yet the biggest offender regarding characters who fail is, ironically, Clara. I say ironic, because she's supposed to be this wise, elderly sage who helps Elizabeth with her marriage, but in the end it only works out that way because the script says it does. Otherwise, she comes across as either creepy or intrusive. When Elizabeth is presenting a quote for her house, Clara begins asking about personal details about Elizabeth's religious and marital life, and won't stop even after Elizabeth makes it clear she feels uncomfortable. I'm a Christian who believes in the resurrected Savior and salvation through Christ alone, and even I thought the old bat was being nosy. Plus, all her humor scenes involve her rambling and babbling, and come across as a woman on the verge of going insane. I have a feeling they were trying to make her like the black woman in Flywheel, except whereas that woman was actually funny and likable, Clara is just senile and annoying.

To be fair, it's not just Clara who comes across as creepy. In fact, many scenes with characters, played for laughs, just come across as weird. The biggest offender is the scene where Danielle finds her mom eating and drinking in the prayer room. You're supposed to laugh at it, but Shirer's delivery, the bizarre nature of the whole situation, and the look of shock on Danielle and her friend, make the entire scene more creepy than entertaining. Seriously, take out the background music and start playing something like the Nightmare on Elm Street theme, and tell me it has the same humor as before. My wife and I left that sequence more confused than amused. I was reminded of a line from Mystery Science Theater 3000 where a movie attempted to be funny, and Tom Servo remarked, "That was supposed to make me sad, right?"

Theology

Putting cinematic themes and motifs aside, one of the biggest complaints lodged against the film was the theology found within. Much has been written on this already by men who are much more learned and godly than I (for example, an excellent commentary from Justin Peters), but I feel this to be an important topic to cover if we're going to review this movie in detail.

Let me quickly clarify, before I get into any theological criticism, that I firmly believe prayer is important. I don't think any Christian reading this post is going to deny that. We're commanded by scripture to pray, as a way of giving thanks, offering praise, or making requests to God. It is a duty of all Christians, and part of a healthy spiritual life should be a healthy prayer life. The only problem lies, as with any theological doctrine, in how far we take the power and means of prayer. Can we change God's mind with our prayer? Do we, as some Word of Faith heretics claim, give God permission to act on earth by prayer? Can God only do things if we pray for Him to do it, as some Hyper-Charismatic heretics teach?

If we're going to talk specifically about War Room and its theology of prayer, then we need to get to the big elephant in the room: the infamous devil rebuking scene. This scene happens shortly after Elizabeth begins her prayer room in earnest, and after she receives a text that Tony is with another woman. She steps out of her prayer room, then begins to directly address the devil, telling him that he no longer has power in this house. She then (I swear I'm not making any of this up) walks the devil out of her house, and tells him not to come back. (My wife literally responded with, "She freakin' walked the devil out of her house? What the freakin' crap!")

The problem is that this scene, and many others involving prayer, takes what is God's power and makes it ours. The Kendrick Bros., in the DVD commentary, defend this scene by saying that all Elizabeth is doing is what Jesus does in rebuking the devil. Yet why could Christ rebuke the devil, as he did during his temptations? This was because he was divine. He was God the Son incarnate. Contrast this with what Jude tells believers to do:

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” [Jude v. 9]

The best comparison I might make is with a retail employee dealing with an irate customer. If a customer gets super upset to the point of becoming insulting or derisive, the employee doesn't say "Get out of my store!" Rather, the employee says "Talk to my manager," and the manager can kick the person out of the store - a store which he, not the employee, manages. Likewise, if we feel temptations from Satan, we rest on the authority and power of God, not by any personal commands from ourselves (even if "in Jesus' name"). I don't have any authority to rebuke the devil - I pray to God that He save me from such times, just as Michael the archangel did before Satan. In fact, the idea that we can go around fighting Satan while tossing in Christ's name reminds me of the counter-rebuke from the demoniac in Acts: "I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?"

Some might try to appeal to the verse appealed to in the movie: just before her meltdown, Elizabeth reads James 4:7, which reads (in the NASB): "Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." The script interprets this verse quite literally, as if we're supposed to get up and start attacking Satan. The truth of the matter is the film takes the verse out of context and applies it in too broad a way, as often happens in Pop Evangelicalism. Here is a fuller context for verse 7 (the verse itself is in bold):

What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us”? But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you. [James 4:1-10]

James is not talking about prayer closets. He's not talking about jumping up and running around the house screaming at the devil. Rather, James is talking about personal sin struggles. James is addressing those who might be creating quarrels and conflicts because of their personal sins and desires. By doing so, the people had been creating two authorities in their life: the world (which gave them what they wanted), and Christ. You cannot, however, have two masters; as James himself says, friendship with the world is enmity with God. James, however, gives hope to the convicted Christian reading these verses: God gives grace to the humble - that is, those who can see their errors. Therefore, he commands them to "submit to God" (rather than to the world). Of course, submitting to the world will bring about temptations from our previous worldly desires. When this happens, we then "resist the devil" - that is, submit further to God, and fight against these temptations. God will not abandon us in this struggle. With this in mind, James gives the commands for believers to "cleanse their hands," "purify their hearts," etc.

The point of this is that War Room not only forgets the model scripture plainly gives us in dealing with the devil, but it misinterprets a verse about personal struggles and applies it to a much larger meaning. As a result, the film tells Christians that they can, by an extended authority, go around cussing out the devil and kicking him out of places. The fact is, the only authority we have is God's, and we rely on that and not our own. Likewise, James 4:7 does not give us a right to engage in such spiritual warfare, but to turn to God in our more troubling moments of sanctification.

Another problematic scene, directly related to this, is the mugger scene. When confronted by a man with a knife, Clara tells him, "Put the knife down, in the name of Jesus." What happens next? Without any hesitation, the mugger lowers his knife. End scene. That's it. My wife and I had to pause the DVD a moment because of how dumbfounded we were. The Kendrick Brothers claim that such situations really do happen, and can be verified with news stories. I'm aware of such stories, and while certainly people have driven off muggers by witnessing, it's been a lot more complicated than simply demanding they put the knife down. Yet here, by a mere command, a man with a knife just gives up.

Putting this aside, there's the whole issue of the importance of a prayer closet. The Kendrick Brothers clarify in the DVD commentary that the idea of a "war room" is not to say you need a prayer room in the house, but merely a private place to pray. The problem is, such a general teaching isn't taught in the movie itself. Everything happens, and the blessings pour out, because of the "war room" used by the characters. The causal effect is not a more God-centered life, but the "war room" all the characters participate in. Even Danielle starts to have her own "war room," and finds her wishes fulfilled. Near the end of the movie, a pastor walks into Clara's prayer room and says he knows it's a prayer room because it "feels like it's baked in" - in other words, this film makes a connection between prayer closets and what one might call "Evangelical mysticism."

In fact, there's so much mysticism or psychic-like ability given to the Clara character that one expects her to be turned into an Eastern Orthodox icon by the end of the film. One scene even jokingly acts like Clara can see things though she's not there. She's given this aura like she has some sixth sense thanks to her extensive prayer life.

There is likewise the ending of the movie, which feeds into the Evangelical mentality of how we need to in essence pray our problems away. Again, I'm not minimizing the importance of prayer, but God doesn't expect us to pray and then wait for things to happen. The medieval Poles, upon approaching Vienna, were definitely praying to Christ... they were also readying their spears to charge headlong into the Muslim hordes. The problem is modern Christianity treats prayer as if by doing so there'll be another outpouring of the Spirit, or God is going to miraculously do something while we sit back and twiddle our fingers. This is why you have Evangelicals who on the one hand want revival in America, and yet on the other hand want lots of Muslims to invade America so we can convert them. While the Kendrick Brothers would probably accuse me of misrepresenting how they were trying to represent prayer, that's nonetheless how it comes across in the film. Even the movie poster advertises itself with "Prayer is a powerful weapon." No - God's a powerful weapon, and our prayers are an appeal to Him to utilize Himself given the circumstances.

These aren't the only theological problems with the film. One problem I didn't expect was in regards to submission. Obviously, we've established the disrespect shown by Elizabeth towards her husband, both in her attitude, how she speaks to others about him, and how she handles their finances. Another problem in her character's attitude of a relationship to her husband is heard in a scene with Beth Moore. Yes, that Beth Moore. If you don't know who Beth Moore is, you just need to know she's a heretical Evangelical pastrix who thinks God gives her private revelations, and who literally teaches women to read themselves into Bible passages about other women. If you don't know what she looks like, or just how crazy she is, here's a hint:

But returning to War Room, Beth Moore plays Elizabeth's boss. While they're talking about her marital problems, Beth Moore delivers this line:

"Sometimes submission is learning to duck so God can hit your husband."

I shared this line with someone else, who promptly responded with, "That is smug as heck!" Want to know something even more astounding? The Kendrick Brother told Beth Moore to just be herself in that role... and it was her who made up that "submission" line. Yes, that's right - the line wasn't originally in the script, but they let it stay in the film. This, despite the fact that the line is absolutely terrible. It's an example of the soft feminism so rampant in Evangelicalism today, which otherwise likes to pretend it's free of any form of feminism. It's just a Christian version of the tendency among secular women to laugh at their husbands and treat them like idiot manchildren.

Let me put it this way. Suppose you had a scene where some Christian men were hanging around the office, complaining about how disrespectful their wives are. Imagine one of the men saying with a smirk, "Sometimes 'nurturing' is stepping back and letting God make an ass out of your wife." Of course, all the soft feminists in modern Evangelicalism would be in an uproar - "Boo hoo that's mean be nice to women blah blah blah." Yet here the Kendrick Brothers (who emphasized the need for husbands to be respected in their DVD commentary for Flywheel) have permitted that kind of terrible theology to seep into their film.

And such an erroneous line was sourced to a heretic - who would've thought?

(Once again, let me do a little "mansplaining" here. After that line was delivered, the most vociferous reaction came not from my own XY-chromosome lips, but from my wife. She was utterly horrified by that line, and found it offensive.)

How It Should Have Been

It's easy to rant and rave against a movie, but it's another to suggest how problems can be fixed. The sad thing is that, as I pondered on the movie after watching it, I realized that somewhere in here is a good movie. Let me present how I think it should have gone down instead...

We start with Elizabeth and Tony Jordan. Tony works for a pharmaceutical company, while Elizabeth works in real estate. They have a daughter, Danielle, who is working on a jump rope competition. Tony and Elizabeth are having struggles, both in balancing their careers and family time, as well as Elizabeth sending money to her deadbeat brother. This leads the two to fight. Meanwhile, at work, Tony is receiving praise and attention from a woman, who is clearly showing interest in him. 

Elizabeth meets Clara, and the two share coffee over the appraising. They start to bond, and Elizabeth opens up more and more about her family. Meanwhile, Tony and the office woman are bonding more emotionally as well. Tony is starting to struggle with how far he takes this connection, given problems at home. At home, Danielle starts begging Tony to help her with jump rope practices, but he continually refuses, because of his work schedule. 

While walking about, Elizabeth and Clara are mugged at knife-point. Clara shows absolutely no fear, despite the mugger's attempts to frighten her. She begins to witness to the mugger, about his sin and the death due to him for it. The mugger eventually feels guilty and leaves in a hurry. Clara explains to Elizabeth that she is strong in her faith and life eternal with Christ, and hence she isn't afraid of death. This makes Elizabeth more interested in Clara's religious life, and she begins to reflect on her own. She comes to a realization that she has forgotten about God's authority in her life, and she tearfully submits to God, praying for renewed strength in her life. 

The Jordan home environment starts to change. Elizabeth tries to help Danielle out for her jump rope competition, although she makes it clear she wants her daddy to help. Elizabeth repents to Tony for how she had been treating him, and promises to be include him in their decision-making. Tony isn't sure yet how to respond to this, and still struggles with temptations to commit adultery. Elizabeth's humility, in fact, creates a spiritual struggle of his own, making him want to become more involved with his family. One night, while Tony works late, he is texted by both Elizabeth and the other woman, both of whom are in essence offering to give him late-night company. Tony struggles in his office, torn between marital loyalty and his fleshly desires...but finally decides to go home to his wife. He arrives and they cuddle, showing affection for the first time in the movie. 

When he goes in the next day, Tony is laid off from his job. He becomes a broken man, feeling useless without the one thing that he had found purpose in. Elizabeth gives him tenderness, promising to stay by his side. Moved by her kindness and love, Tony apologizes for how he had been treating her, and asks for forgiveness for his attitude. He then goes to Danielle and promises to assist her with her jump rope competition. After much practice, Danielle, Tony, and the rest of the jump rope team perform at the competition, with Elizabeth and Clara in attendance. They win first place, and head home, where they have a special dinner, and give a prayer of thanks to God for all that has happened recently, good or bad. Roll credits.

Alright, I'll be the first to admit this may not be the most perfect story idea ever written. However, I'm sure others who share my view on the film would agree it's at least a much better delivery than what was offered in War Room. The ironic thing is that, as I thought more and more on how to make the story better, I realized that any idea completely removed the "prayer room" subplot.

There was plenty more in the movie that seemed like a drive-by concepts that could have been expanded upon. For example, a nightmare sequence has Tony trying to save his wife from a mugger, only to turn the mugger around and see it's actually him. This sequence comes out of nowhere and feels like a forced attempt to build on Tony's character after an hour-and-a-half of no development. What the Kendrick Bros. could have done instead was show that Tony was concerned about Elizabeth's mugger episode, but was trying to act tough to hide his sincere concern. Throughout the film, Tony could have nightmares about Elizabeth and the mugger, and every time he has the dream, he gets closer and closer to the mugger. The next-to-last dream has him waking up just before the mugger's identity is revealed. Then, with the last dream, he sees that the thing harming his wife is actually him. It would make the sequence feel less disjointed, and it would show that Tony does indeed care for his wife, even if he's trying to conceal it.

Point is, there was definitely potential in this film, and much of it was wasted on prayer room silliness and plot points that are introduced but not developed enough.

Concluding Thoughts

At this point, I'm not certain what else to say about the film that I've already clarified. It's boring, poorly written, shoddily acted, unoriginal, and presents dangerous theology. Oh yeah, and it has Beth Moore.

As I wrote at the beginning, my wife and I started out as big Kendrick Brothers fans... but by the end of this, we were both feeling disappointed. I'm not going to sit here and claim all their films are absolutely perfect (I doubt they would, either), but compared to most films in the "American Christian" market, they were of a higher quality than what you would find on late-night TBN or Daystar. This film, by comparison, was just weak. If the Kendrick Brothers decide to make another movie, good on them - but I hope they'll put far more effort and time into it than they did with War Room.

Then again, considering this movie apparently made triple its budget back, maybe bad theology is much more marketable...

A Simple Review of "Heaven is for Real"

Introduction

Back in about 2010 or so, a book came out called Heaven is for Real, written by Todd Burpo and discussing the experiences of his son, Colton Burpo, who supposedly went to heaven and experienced many things there. It has now been released as a major motion picture, and both book and film have reportedly done very well on the market (the book itself was a #1 New York Times Bestseller).

I knew the book existed, but I chose not to read it, as I had generally lost interest in supposed trips to heaven or hell after hearing Bill Wiese's and Mary K. Baxter's accounts. Most of them read like what I call "bad Dante Alighieri fanfiction," and I was always of the opinion that I had the Bible, which was written by the One who lived in heaven, therefore why would I need anyone else's account? Nonetheless, many people I knew or encountered had read the book, and swore up and down that they loved it. When the movie came out, I realized just how far this had gone (consider that, at the time of this writing, there isn't a movie for The Shack out in theaters...thank God). I decided to purchase it and read it for myself, and present a review for my readers. I know that other people have already written critiques, and some of what I say will probably be beating around the bush, but I hope this post will prove edifying for someone.

Surprisingly, the book was very easy to read. I actually finished reading it in one day. The chapters are short, it's only 154 pages, and, as I said, it reads quite easily. It also doesn't read like "bad Dante Alighieri fanfiction," but rather is presented in a kind of piecemeal fashion, with Colton's parents asking what happened, and him providing information bit by bit.

Nearly half of the book (perhaps just over two-fifths) is a description of the calamities that befell the Burpo family, leading up to the visions Colton had. Shortly after Todd Burpo, a pastor in the Wesleyan Church, has suffered from a broken leg, kidney stones, and breast cancer, he and his wife Sonja discover that their son, Colton, has appendicitis. Because this had been misdiagnosed by the doctors they originally went to, much of the dangerous fluid from his appendix had already seeped into most of his body. Taking him to a hospital further away from home, the parents begin to pray and hope that Colton will get better. Miraculously, he does.

Four months after the ordeal, Colton begins to make offhand comments about a visit to heaven, where he got to see Jesus. It gets more serious when he talks of meeting with his deceased great-grandfather, nicknamed "Pop," as well as meeting the child whom Sonja had miscarried with (something he reportedly had not been told about). Todd, curious about this, pries into Colton's mind, getting more and more information from him. Colton's claims and descriptions become the focus of the rest of the book.

Colton's Claims versus the Bible

It should be noted here that Todd Burpo has made a response to many of the critics who have already spoken out against his son's story:

"The Jesus in the Bible is the same Jesus who did this for Colton. If Christians don't like that they must be Pharisees... Christians and sinners still appreciate miracles. Pharisees never have and never will... In the Bible, Pharisees used to call themselves Jews. Today they call themselves Christians... The people who say Colton's trip to Heaven can't happen, I say, 'Read your Bible.'" [source]

Well then...it's only fair that we follow Burpo's advice and "read our Bible." Therefore, let's review some of the major claims made by Colton regarding what he saw in heaven, and see whether they confirm what is taught in scripture:

1) Jesus has a rainbow horse

One of the first big things Colton talks about is that Jesus has a rainbow horse. He explains to his dad that Jesus has a "rainbow horse" he got to pet (pg. 63). Later on, Colton even tells his grandmother about "Jesus' rainbow horse" (pg. 90).

Nowhere in scripture, however, is Jesus ever described as having a rainbow horse. The only part which comes close is the description of Christ riding a white horse (Rev 19:11), unless one counts Zechariah's vision of the pre-incarnate Christ riding a red horse (Zec 1:8). We would have to therefore simply accept Colton's words as extra-scriptural revelation regarding Christ owning a specific rainbow horse.

2) Colton's description of Jesus' face and clothes

Colton describes Jesus as having "brown hair and...hair on his face" (meaning a beard), with eyes that are "so pretty" (pg. 65). He goes on to explain that Christ wore a white outfit with a purple slash going across his chest, from his shoulder to under his arm (ibid). Colton even explains that "Jesus was the only one in heaven who had purple on" (ibid). On top of this, Jesus had a golden crown on his head with "this diamond thing in the middle of it and it was kind of pink" (pg. 65-66).

Of course, what has been pointed out throughout history is that there are no concise descriptions of Christ in his earthly ministry within scripture. The only exception is perhaps Isaiah 53:2b, which reads regarding the coming messiah: "he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him." This would contradict one description from the book that Jesus is "very masculine, really strong and big" and "his eyes are just beautiful" (pg. 143).

Within the New Testament itself, the only descriptions of Christ are found in his post-ascension state, such as what is found in Revelation 1:12-16. Here, Christ is described as having white hair, a golden sash around his chest (literally around his chest like a high priest - not worn like a sash, as Colton describes), eyes of flame, feet like furnished bronze, and having a voice like the roar of many waters. This is nothing like the down to earth vision that Colton had of Christ. To be fair, most take John's vision here to be entirely representational - however, no depiction of Christ after the resurrection and ascension has Jesus in this tamed expression so common in "trips to heaven" accounts. After the ascension, Christ always appears in the midst of his full glory.

Similarly, nowhere is a crown described as being seen on the resurrected, glorified Christ, save perhaps for one moment in Revelation, where it is simply described as a golden crown (Rev 14:14). Nowhere is a crown described with a pink diamond. Again, we would have to accept Colton's words here as extra-scriptural revelation.

3) Colton's description of Christ's wounds

In addition to Christ's facial features and clothes, Colton likewise described the wounds he saw on Christ's body. He initially calls them "markers" (pg. 65), saying they are red in color, and then gives the following description after his father asks where he saw these wounds:

Without hesitation, he stood to his feet. He held out his right hand, palm up and pointed to the center of it with his left. Then he held out his left palm and pointed with his right hand. Finally, Colton bent over and pointed to the tops of both his feet. [pg. 67]

To this, his father thinks in his head, "He saw this. He had to have" (ibid).

Had I been told this, however, I would have readily believed that he was absolutely wrong, because of the fact that Christ wasn't crucified in the palms, but in the wrists. The Greek word used in the New Testament that is often translated as "palms" or "hands" actually refers to not just the hand (as we know the word to mean today), but the wrist as well. Also, history proves that Romans crucified people at the wrists because it kept the arms up better that way - had they crucified the palms, the weight of the human body would have torn easily and the hands would not have stayed on the cross.

This should be evidence alone that, whatever Colton experienced, it was not a true vision of Christ.

4) Children in heaven do homework

When Todd asks Colton what he did in heaven, his son readily replies, "Homework... Jesus was my teacher... Jesus gave me work to do, and that was my favorite part of heaven" (pg. 71-72).

Nowhere is this "homework" explained. Likewise, nowhere does scripture speak of any "homework" being given in heaven, either at this moment or after the resurrection. This sounds more like a child's religious fantasy than an account that can be confirmed by scripture. If we are to accept it as true, then we must accept it as extra-scriptural revelation of what happens in heaven.

5) Colton's description of people in heaven

Colton claims that "everybody's got wings" in heaven, and with them they can fly (pg. 72). The size of the wings differs - Colton says he had little wings (ibid) while his deceased great-grandfather had big wings (pg. 87). He likewise claims that "all the people have a light above their head," (pg. 73). He likewise explains that all wear white garments, and wear sashes, of various colors, although angels wear yellow (pg. 75).

No such description, however, is found in scripture regarding those who have passed on. Wings are only described in regards to angels, and often involved more than two wings (see, for example, the six wings on the Seraphim in Isa 6:2). Nowhere are wings or bright light attributed to those humans who have passed on. When Samuel rises at the behest of the witch of Endor, he is described as being in a robe and nothing else - no wings or halos (1 Sam 28:14). When the apostle John describes believers standing before the throne of God (Rev 7:9-12), they are only described as having white robes, and no other distinguishing features - again, no wings or halos, let alone multicolored sashes.

Todd attempts to prove his son's account by citing the account of the man Daniel encounters (Dan 10:4-6). However, this was an angel, not a believer in heaven, and the "gold" that he wore was clearly said to be (by Burpo's own translation) "around his waist," not worn like a sash as Colton describes. Todd runs into a similar problem when he cites an angel in Revelation (Rev 10:1), which describes an angel but does not confirm Colton's statement that believers in heaven look like angels. Likewise, Todd appeals to the angel at Christ's tomb (Matt 28:3), who is described as having an "appearance like lightning," but which matches nothing described by what Colton had told him - and, once again, it does not describe believers in heaven.

The one passage Todd turns to that does talk about a believer, and not an angel, is Acts 6:15. Quoting from the NLT, he says: "[Stephen's] face became as bright as an angel's" (pg. 73). Appealing to this passage, however, presents several problems. For one, Stephen wasn't dead and in heaven - he was still alive, and on earth. For another, Todd Burpo is clearly choosing a translation (and honestly, not a very good one) that conforms with what he wants to prove: the original Greek literally renders "all in the council saw the face of his as the face of an angel." It says nothing about Stephen's face shining in the same way an angel does, and while some commentators have thought of it as such (hence the NLT's rendering), others have pointed out that it is a way of speaking about inward discernment (as similar phraseology is found in Gen 33:10, as well as in rabbinical literature). We must also remember that, contextually speaking, Stephen is about to begin speaking at length to the Sanhedrin about the past of the Jewish people, and the history of salvation, and the coming judgment upon them. Stephen is not shining in the face (for no one reacts to him as if he were), but rather he is appearing before them as a true and holy messenger of God (the word "angel" in the Greek also referring to "messenger").

Even stranger is that the book emphasizes that Colton wasn't dead when he experienced all these visions...why, then, was he made to look like people who had died? Todd cites the apostles Paul and John as examples of people who went to heaven while still alive, but neither of those men immediately grew wings, nor described themselves as being transformed into what a dead person becomes once they cross over.

In the end, Colton's description of people in heaven fits more into a Hallmark Christmas card - it does not fit into a biblical understanding of what angels or the deceased look like.

6) What time means in heaven

Colton tells his father that he was in heaven altogether for about three minutes (pg. 76). Todd is confused by this, as Colton seemed to have done a lot in those three minutes, but shrugs it off with: "Maybe there is no time in heaven. At least not as we understand it" (pg. 78).

Predictably, he turns to 2 Peter 3:8, where the apostle writes that, to the Lord, "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." However, this passage is not saying that one 24-hour day to the Lord is literally like a thousand years to us. When you look at the full context, Peter is speaking about judgment, and the supposed slowness of God's judgment. Peter is saying that we shouldn't be shocked if it takes God one year or a hundred years to deliver judgment upon a group of people, as a hundred years to God is really nothing, unlike what it means to us.

In order for us to accept that there is a weird understanding of time in heaven, we would have to accept Colton Burpo's claims as extra-scriptural revelation.

7) Gabriel sits at God's left hand

On Christmas of 2003, Colton began to tell his dad about seeing the throne room of God. Ge describes it as "really, really big, because God is the biggest one there is" (pg. 100). He likewise describes "Jesus' chair is right next to his Dad's" (ibid). Todd then asks who sat on the other side of God's throne, to which Colton replies, "Oh, that's easy, Dad. That's where the angel Gabriel is. He's really nice" (pg. 101).

Todd Burpo attempts to prove his son's account by citing Luke 1:13-15a, 18-19, specifically Gabriel's statement "I stand in the presence of God." Of course, scripture says that lots of angels stand in the presence of God (cf. Rev 7:11; 8:2), and Gabriel nowhere says "I sit at the left hand of God" (notice that, in the passage Burpo himself cites, Gabriel doesn't even use the word sit). In order to believe that Gabriel sits at the left hand of God's throne, you must simply accept Colton's account as extra-scriptural revelation.

8) What does the Holy Spirit look like?

While continuing the discussion from the previous point, Todd asks Colton where he sat in heaven. Colton says that he sitting by God the Holy Spirit (pg. 102). Todd asks Colton what the Holy Spirit looked like, to which Colton replies, "Hmm, that's kind of a hard one...he's kind of blue" (pg. 103).

At this point, I seriously had to put the book down and let my mind settle on what I had just read. The Holy Spirit is "kind of blue"? What passage in all of scripture confirms that? What passage of scripture even hints at that? I seriously almost stopped reading the book at this point - the musings of a young child had suddenly turned so goofy that I was amazed Todd and Sonja were still taking anything he said seriously.

Actual photograph of the Holy Spirit

Again, in order to believe that the Holy Spirit is blue, one would have to accept Colton's claim as extra-scriptural revelation. Then again, who in their right minds would do that? Unfortunately, it seems millions of people already have.

9) Nobody is old in heaven

When shown a picture of what his great-grandfather looked like younger, Colton says that this is what he looked like in heaven, and states matter-of-factly, "Dad, nobody's old in heaven. And nobody wears glasses" (pg. 121). At the end of the same chapter, Todd tells the reader: "The bad news is that in heaven, we'll still look like ourselves. The good news is, it'll be the younger version" (pg. 123).

This is rather interesting, given that, when Colton saw his miscarried sister, he described her as being as old as his current sister (who was very young at the time), only "a little bit smaller" (pg. 95). He likewise describes children being in heaven, seen in a childlike age. Why, however, are they seen as children and not full grown adults? Why are people not old, and yet they still are, in some circumstances, incredibly young? Do people grow up in heaven like they do on earth? Do they stop getting older at a magical age? Why are they not allowed to be old? This presents a contradiction with Colton's story.

In either case, nowhere in scripture does it explain how old we will be, or what we will look like. The apostle Paul does speak on our bodies after the resurrection, but merely says they will be glorified (1 Cor 15:42-49) - he doesn't say we will be a certain age, or that no one will appear elderly. One would therefore have to accept Colton's specific information as extra-scriptural revelation.

10) Angels have swords to keep the devil out

After watching the film The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Sonja comments to Colton that he won't have to worry about swords in heaven. Colton quickly replies, "There are too swords in heaven!" (pg. 132) When asked why they need swords in heaven, Colton says, "Mom, Satan's not in hell yet...The angels carry swords so they can keep Satan out of heaven!" (pg. 133).

Nowhere in scripture are angels recorded as needing swords to keep Satan out of heaven, let alone is it even described that angels stand guard to keep Satan out of heaven. Job 1:6 even describes Satan walking about heaven and coming before the presence of God, with no sign that he had to avoid sword-wielding angels to do it. Todd cites Christ's statement that he saw Satan fall from heaven (Luke 10:18), though this merely speaks of Satan being cast out of heaven, not about angels walking around heaven with swords to keep him out. One would have to, yet again, simply accept Colton's words as extra-scriptural revelation.

11) When do we get our glorified bodies?

One thing I noticed reading this book was that there seemed to be very little talk of the resurrection. Initially I thought there was only one real mention of a resurrection in the entire book, and that is when Colton says of his great grandfather: "He's in heaven. He's got a new body. Jesus told me if you don't go to heaven, you don't get a new body" (pg. 136). However, I later realized that this couldn't be about the resurrection, as Colton was talking of a new body while you're in heaven, and that his great grandfather already had this new body.

While Paul does speak of us inheriting an "imperishable body" that will "bear the image of the heavenly," it is only given to us at the resurrection (see 1 Cor 15:42-49). Nowhere is it said that we receive this upon death, or when we get to heaven. Therefore, unless Pop has been resurrected already and then ascended into heaven, Colton's claims about what "Jesus" told him are completely contradictory to the biblical teaching.

12) There will be a Battle of Armageddon at the end times

Humorously enough, Colton apparently was given insight into the future as well as the past or present. He described witnessing the supposed Battle of Armageddon at the end times:

"Dad, did you know there's going to be a war?... There's going to be a war, and it's going to destroy this world. Jesus and the angels and the good people are going to fight against Satan and the monsters and the bad people. I saw it... In heaven, the women and the children got to stand back and watch. So I stood back and watched... But the men, they had to fight..." [pg. 136]

When asked what the monsters were, Colton explains "like dragons and stuff" (pg. 137). As for those fighting the monsters, Colton says they "either get a sword or a bow and arrow, but I don't remember which" (pg. 138).

Todd cites two passages to confirm what Colton was saying: Revelation 9:6-10 and 20:1-3, 7-10. However, in the first passage (regarding the strange locust creatures), no one is recording fighting them, only that they are plaguing humanity. In the second passage, no monsters are mentioned, only that Satan will seduce the nations, turn them against the saints of God, and then God will come down and destroy them with fire. There is no mention of believers fighting monsters or dragons or the like.

Colton's description fits well with pop Dispensationalism or popular notions of the end times that you find in bookstores, but, again, it doesn't describe anything talked about in the Bible. We would have to accept it as extra-scriptural revelation about the end times.

13) Animals are in heaven

In addition to the rainbow-colored horse, Colton claims that while in heaven he saw "dogs, birds, even a lion - and the lion was friendly, not fierce" (pg. 152).

Nowhere does scripture say animals are in heaven. Some will probably point to passages like Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25 (the famous "lion and the lamb" passages), however, these are generally believed to be about the new creation after the resurrection, when peace will settle on the earth. In order for us to believe there are animals in heaven, we would have to take Colton's word for it, in which case we'd have to accept it as extra-scriptural revelation.

14) The Virgin Mary still functions as Christ's mother

In a peculiar section at the end of the book, Todd gives an answer to a popular question asked by Roman Catholics:

A lot of our Catholic friends have asked whether Colton saw Mary, the mother of Jesus. The answer to that is also yes. He saw Mary kneeling before the throne of God and at other times, standing beside Jesus. "She still loves him like a mom," Colton said. [pg.152-153]

At this point, I began to wonder if some of the stuff Colton was claiming was just stuff he made up on the fly. It almost feels as if Colton is, at this point, merely accommodating the desires and needs of various people who ask him questions.

In any case, there is no evidence in scripture that the Virgin Mary functions in this role in heaven. We would have to accept Colton's description as extra-scriptural revelation.

The Gospel of Colton Burpo

As one can tell already, much of the focus of the book is on heaven. Nothing is said of a resurrection, the new creation when Christ returns, and the like. The message is almost entirely a cheerful one. Of course, there is mention of Satan, and at one point Colton Burpo says that someone recently deceased "had to know Jesus or he can't get into heaven" (pg. 57). However, there's no talk of eternal punishment. There's no talk of sins. There's no talk of judgment. There's not talk of mercy in spite of the judgment deserved. Even with the discussion of the end times battle, there's no mention of what will happen afterward to the bad guys after that.

How important is the resurrection? The apostle Paul connected it to the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:12-13), going on to say "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1 Cor 15:14). Christ's resurrection was "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Cor 15:20), meaning that Christ was the first to be raised in order that the future resurrection would be made possible (cf. 1 Cor 15:21-26). In fact, the apostle Paul portrayed Christ's resurrection as an important part of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4). This resurrection, however, is blatantly missing from any part of Colton Burpo's presentation of the afterlife - indeed, it almost seems meaningless.

One of the greatest dangers from this is what the Gospel is presented as. When Todd asks his kids why Jesus died on the cross, Colton says that Jesus told him "Jesus died on the cross so we could go see his Dad" (pg. 111). Granted, I can try to be gracious and say (as Todd Burpo says throughout the book) that Colton is a little child, and hence is speaking from the plain language of a little child...although Colton's claiming Jesus himself said this. The greater problem is that Colton's father - who is a pastor - treats his religious opinion as the norm, and even seems to accept his wording as what Jesus himself desires people to know:

In my mind's eye, I saw Jesus, with Colton on his lap, brushing past all the seminary degrees, knocking down the theological treatises stacked high as skyscrapers, and boiling down fancy words like propitiation and soteriology to something a child could understand. [ibid]

Todd calls his son's words "the simplest and sweetest declaration of the gospel I had ever heard" (ibid), going on to ask Colton, "Hey, do you wanna preach on Sunday?" (pg. 112). This watered down, simplified version of the Gospel, therefore, is presented as something Jesus wants every Christian to believe in. One can almost hear the kind of snide attack against most organized theology, as if Colton Burpo's Jesus is telling people, "Just throw out church history, your confessions, your creeds, your study of the original language, and just enjoy this message."

One complaint that has been lodged against most visits-to-heaven accounts, or near-death experiences, is that they often forgo concerns about our sin and our righteousness before God, and focus instead on the therapeutic concerns of most individuals. We can readily see that here, where the Gospel is distilled into the feel good message of "Jesus loves you." While Christ certainly loves his flock, this presents problems with how the people who believe in this will understand scripture. For example, Colton Burpo emphasizes how much God loves children, and presents the idea that all children who die go to heaven...how, then, would Colton (let alone his father Todd) explain the places in scripture where children (even infants) are clearly killed by God in judgment, either in the flood, the tenth plague in Egypt, the invasion of Canaan, etc. For those who have studied and looked at God's holiness and justice, this isn't an issue...for people who adhere to a simplified gospel like that presented by Colton Burpo, however, this will present them with problems. It is these kinds of people who atheists that have actually studied what the scripture says will snatch up or make to look like a fool when the tough questions get asked. How will they reconcile Colton Burpo's promise that God "loves" literally all children every where, and then in the Old Testament judgment is clearly being passed in the form of what atheists call (erroneously) genocide and murder? They won't be able to, because their understanding of God's love is not a biblical one, but one found in the private revelations of a four-year old boy.

The fact is, Christ's love for us is love in a certain context. Christ loves us because we are given to him by the Father, and so he atoned for our sins, and bore the punishment that we deserved for those sins. That's something even a child can understand without using the big terms, and unfortunate this is not the gospel we are being told from the Burpo family.

Todd Burpo's Discernment

Todd Burpo, we must remember, is an ordained pastor. Therefore, it is part of his job to test all things, and make certain that they conform with the teachings of scripture. When his son began to tell him things about heaven and his visitations with Jesus, how did he react?

Personally, I was rather shocked with just how easily he and Sonja seemed to accept his son's testimony. In the prologue, when Todd explains the first time Colton hinted at his other-worldly experience, Colton says to his mother, "I remember [the hospital]. That's where the angels sang to me" (pg. xvii). Todd describes this as being something that sent him and his wife into a deep shock, when I think most parents would have just figured, "My kid had a nice little dream while he was under." They later state they can't be certain if it was a dream, since "he seems so sure" (pg. xx). At this, I have to wonder just how many children the Burpos have run into over time. When I was a little boy, I at one point claimed to my parents that, one Christmas night, I saw Rudolph's nose. I was certain of it. I said it in a tone that fully believed I had seen Rudolph. If my parents had been the Burpos, they might have gasped, eyed each other, and then whispered in shocked tones later on, "Did he see Rudolph? He just seems so sure!" (Heck, I'm even reminded of the Cottingley Fairies, where two young girls were absolutely sure they had taken photos of fairies, and to their dying day insisted that at least some of the photos were real). Similarly, Todd recounts how, while he and Sonja were going over the bills and what to pay, Colton comes up and says, "Jesus used Dr. O'Holleran to help fix me...You need to pay him" (pg. 54). Again, the parents are absolutely shocked their son would think this way...despite the fact I could name Christian parents who can tell similar stories about cute things their children have said, and in similar circumstances.

Even sillier is when Colton is telling his father of all the details in heaven, and his father acts as if the vividness of Colton's account is strange, saying "little boys don't exactly come up and offer you long, detailed histories" (pg. 62). I could point to a few little boys in my church alone who, if you gave them the chance, would spin you a yarn that would humble George R. R. Martin. While Colton did present information that he could never have possibly known, it just seemed like the Burpos were acting shocked and awed in situations that most parents would have brushed off. In some points, it was almost comical how quickly they reacted with awe at their young son doing what many young boys have done.

Even more comical is how Todd and Sonja seem to submit themselves to the theological lessons from their four-year old son. Talking about how he wanted to ask Colton questions about his so-called experience in heaven, Todd writes: "if he had really seen Jesus and the angels, I wanted to become the student, not the teacher!" (pg. 62) Often when Colton starts to go into an explanation of what he saw or heard, Todd will often tell the reader that he considered this a "new information alert" or "new information time" (which hints that he was aware something about his son's experiences were new or different). The Bible clearly outlines the mother and father as the spiritual leaders of the home, but in the Burpo household things seemed to become reversed.

What is unfortunate, however, is how Todd Burpo (who again, is a pastor) seems to handle scripture in this regard. As the previous notes show, he will almost always take something his son says, find a vague reference to it in scripture, or a loose connection to it in scripture, and immediately assumes that Colton's claim must be true. So, for example, Jesus saying that he saw Satan fall from heaven is somehow proof for Colton's claim that angels walk around with swords to keep the devil out. Likewise, the fact that the Bible uses the word "rainbow" or various forms of colors is proof that Colton, who saw various colors (including a rainbow horse), really did go to heaven. To illustrate how fallacious this interpretation of scripture is, imagine this following scenario:

Kid: "I had an out of body experience where I went to Texas."
Me: "Oh yeah? What was going on?"
Kid: "Well, I met the Queen of England in front of the Eiffel Tower and Godzilla was in the Kremlin next door, and it was raining hard..."
Me: "GASP! It rains in Texas! That must mean he really was in Texas!"

This is literally how dialogue and so-called "scriptural examination" happens in the book. Never mind, of course, that only part of the kid's account was based on truth, or that the rest of the information contradicted the possibility, or added to that reality - nope, because two minor points matched up with each other, the account must have been true. This contradicts the claim made on the back of the book that Colton gave "obscure details about heaven that matched the Bible exactly." Todd comes across as ready to compartmentalize the discrepancies and specifics of his son's account for whatever vague connection can be made to scripture, as seen in one instance where his son gave a description contradictory to what the Bible says, and yet he takes it as a description that "matched Scripture in every detail" (pg. 66). Sometimes (such as with the Holy Spirit being blue), there isn't even an attempt to prove Colton's words are compliant with scripture - his words are just taken at face value.

The problem may come from the fact that Todd seemed completely and utterly willing to immediately believe that Colton had entered heaven. He writes after his very first round of questions with Colton: "It dawned on me that maybe we'd been given a gift and that our job now was to unwrap it, slowly, carefully, and see what was inside" (pg. 64). Even Sonja, his wife, seems excited by this, and ready to accept whatever Colton has to say. Whereas most parents might present some reasonable hesitancy, none of this is seen in Todd and Sonja.

There is also no sign that Todd thought to himself that, if his son really did have an experience, there was a possibility it was from spiritual deception. The apostle Paul warned us that "Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14), and Christ himself gave warnings of signs and wonders passed off as legitimate works of God (Matt 7:22-23; 24:24). One need only look to the history behind Mormonism, Islam, and countless other false religions and heresies to see that spiritual deception is very, very real. If Colton Burpo really did have a spiritual experience, then - given the contradictions with scripture, or strange visions that are nowhere confirmed in scripture - we would have to accept that it was a false experience.

By What Authority?

As the previous notes have suggested, a lot of Colton's claims cannot be substantiated from scripture. As a result, much of it (if not nearly all) is extra-scriptural revelation. Oftentimes, scripture even gets interpreted through the lens of what Colton says, so that we are presented with a new understanding of how to interpret certain passages. This leads us to an important question: who's authority are we going by? Are we going by scripture...or by Colton Burpo?

What shocked me as I read more and more of the book is just how much emphasis was not really being placed upon Christ and the Bible, but rather on Colton and his experiences. Over and over again, phrases like "because of Colton's story" or "due to what Colton said" or "thanks to Colton" were used in reference to someone feeling better, or feeling at peace with eternity. Todd's mother tells him: "Ever since this happened, I think more about what it might really be like in heaven...before, I'd heard, but now I know that someday I'm going to see" (pg. 150). If you look at the Praise for Heaven is for Real section at the very beginning of the book, you'll notice a comment by Jo Anne Lyon, General Superintendent of the Wesleyan Church, which says, "God has chosen to speak to us in this twenty-first century through the unblemished eyes of a child, revealing some of the mysteries of heaven." Even Todd says that he and Sonja, through Colton, "had a glimpse through the veil that separates earth from eternity" (pg. 148).

This all confirms what we have been suggesting all along: that Colton Burpo has presented us with direct revelation from God Himself. He therefore has the same status and authority as the prophets of old, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, as well as the apostles of Christ's time. The logical conclusion of this is that anyone who even thinks of challenging Todd and Colton Burpo are challenging God Himself, and will be judged for it. Even if Todd Burpo has never said this (although his attitude towards critics is rather telling), it is, again, the logical conclusion from the statements made. There is no middle ground for "thus sayeth the Lord," or even "thus showeth me the Lord." Christians might as well purchase Heaven is for Real and add it to their Bibles, because that is how seriously many people take Colton's account.

Perhaps one final thing that alarmed me, near the end, was how people began to equate these supernatural experiences with belief in God. While speaking about a Lithuanian-American girl who had similar experiences to Colton, Todd describes that "her mom began to accept that Akiane's visions were real and that therefore, God must be real" (pg. 143). He also makes the alleged story that a nurse said to him, after Colton's recovery, "there has to be a God, because this is a miracle" (pg. 148). He likewise tells the story of a babysitter who heard some of Colton's testimony about his miscarried sibling, and says "Colton's story about his sister strengthened her Christian faith" (pg. 130). Todd even places talking about his faith in God on equal with talking about his son's experiences:

As a pastor, I was always comfortable talking about my faith, but now, in addition, I talk about what happened to my son. It's the truth and I talk about it, no apologies. [pg. 153]

This again places Colton Burpo and Heaven is for Real on the same level as the Bible. What was it the apostle John wrote about his own gospel? "These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31). The apostle Paul likewise wrote: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17). Yet we might as well change the wording to: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Colton Burpo."

Of course, all of this completely contradicts the doctrine of sola scriptura, and the concept of the absolute sufficiency of scripture. The apostle Paul wrote: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). The phrase "man of God" is harkening back to the concept of an Old Testament messenger from God. The point the apostle Paul is making is that everything in inspired writ is what we need for our spiritual needs - we don't need a little kid coming back from heaven and telling us about Christ's rainbow horsey. To understand God, understand His plan of salvation, and understand what parts of the afterlife we need to focus on, we have the Bible - anything else is simply fluff.

Conclusion

Todd Burpo told his critics to "read their Bible." Well, I have read my Bible, Mister Burpo, and I have held your son's testimony to the light of scripture...and I'm sad to say, your son's account has come out wanting. Your son was most likely facing the effects of delirium from the anesthetic (a side effect that can be so strong the victim actually believes something happened), most likely with some demonic deception thrown in. You need to forsake your presupposition and truly read your Bible to see if your son had a legitimate experience. Then, you must repent of leading people astray with these so-called experiences of heaven. I'm sure you love your son, and I'm sure you want to help people, but you must realize the spiritual damage you do - especially when you respond to any form of discernment by calling your critics Pharisees.

When I began reading this book, I put a little note on one of the first pages: "Question - Will this book deal with Luke 16:27-31?" After finishing it up, I had to go back and write my answer: "Nope." To explain, this passage takes place in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus: both men have died, and Lazarus is up in heaven, while the rich man is down in hell, suffering torment. At this point, a dialogue occurs between the rich man and Abraham:

"And [the rich man] said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’” [Luke 16:27-31]

This passage completely contradicts nearly every near-death experience, or so-called visits to heaven and hell, that are out there on the market. The rich man wanted to do what Bill Wiese, Mary K. Baxter, and Colton Burpo all claimed to do: come back with supernatural experiences about the afterlife and tell people about it for their benefit. What does Abraham say? Basically, Abraham says, "Look, they have their Bibles, don't they? If the Bible isn't sufficient enough, what good is your experience in the afterlife going to do?" Yet with all these accounts and experiences, we are supposed to believe that, after almost 2000 years, Christ apparently changed his mind.

Some might contend here, "But people have been helped by this book!" In what way? By coming closer to God? Which God? The apostle Paul warned of the possibility of people being swayed by "another Jesus," "a different Spirit," and "a different gospel" (cf. 2 Cor 11:4). As we have seen, Colton Burpo could not have been learning from the real, true God, as the real, true God would not contradict His word in such a way. If anyone has been "helped," it has only been in a superficial, emotional way, and not one according to biblical truth. We should not forsake the teachings of scripture for an argument from pragmatism fallacy.

Ultimately, the seduction of this book is that it supposedly offers answers to questions many people have regarding the afterlife. The problem is, much of it is already answered in scripture. It pained me in the book when people make literal pilgrimages to Colton to ask if their believing family member is in heaven, when they can simply read Romans 8, Ephesians 1, Colossians 3, etc., and see for themselves that, if their loved ones have died in faith, they are secure in the arms of God. The problem is that for many in our society the Bible is not enough. They cannot agree with the words of the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. They want more. They want something else. They want an extra kick to their fix. They want something spiritual that appeals to them and their personal emotions. The devil knows this, of course...and that is why the devil is only too happy to present himself as an angel of light to present some kind of "revelation" to give the people something sweet and tender that leads them away from a sufficiency in God's word.

Brothers and sisters, we must not permit Satan to seduce us in such a fashion. We must be like the Psalmist when he said to God "I will delight in your statutes" (Psa 119:16). To permit ourselves to be influenced by contrary visits to heaven are part of what the apostle Paul warned about he mentioned those who "will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths" (2 Tim 4:4). Let us look to the word of God for knowledge of our salvation, and let us look forward, most of all, to the coming resurrection, in which we shall be brought forward before Christ, blameless and holy, counted righteous not for anything we have done, but for what Christ did.