Kingdom of Heaven

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections

It’s exciting to see that Hollywood has not lost its subversive edge. Even though the majority of Americans voted last fall to support the status quo—burgeoning militarism, fear-based “security� programs, and an aggressive foreign policy based on a blend of American self-interest and religious fundamentalism—a growing number of mainstream, big budget films are offering veiled and not so veiled criticisms of the current state of affairs. Fahrenheit 9/11, Team America: World Police, The Village, The Manchurian Candidate, Million Dollar Baby, Hotel Rwanda, The Interpreter, Crash, even Revenge of the Sith are all tremendously subversive and, for the most part, financially lucrative films. While I definitely enjoyed some of these films more than others, what I appreciate about them all is their boldness. Such films naturally polarize audiences, so making them is always a tremendous financial risk. And yet, if you believe strongly enough in your message, the risk is always worth it. Unfortunately, sincerity has no bearing on whether or not your risk pays off. That depends on how large your chunk of the audience is—and whether or not they go to the movies. Subversion doesn’t always sell. But when it does, it usually blows things sky-high.

A good example of where the bomb failed to ignite, however, is Kingdom of Heaven. With a budget of $150 million, this film is doomed to lose money. Three weeks into its release, it is still struggling to crack $50 million at the domestic box office. This is a bit of a mystery to me.
I thought Kingdom of Heaven was a stunning film. Visually, dramatically, thematically, it blew away other recent historical epics, such as Troy and Alexander, like a flaming, Islamic ballista. Even when held up against such modern classics as The Lord of the Rings trilogy or Ridley Scott’s previous sword and sandals film, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven reigns supreme. Not only does Kingdom outdo these films on a visual level (Have you ever seen a better blend of CGI and reality?) the story takes us far deeper than these other films were willing or capable of going. Perhaps the only thing missing from Kingdom of Heaven is Russell Crowe. But then again, this is earth, not heaven, so we can’t expect perfection every time. Besides, one Orlando Bloom plus one Liam Neeson plus one Jeremy Irons plus one Ghassan Massoud almost equals one Russell Crowe—almost.

So why did this film fail to ignite? I don’t pretend to have the definitive answer, but I do have a couple of theories. For one thing, Kingdom of Heaven has a high regard for Muslim fundamentalists and a low regard for Christian fundamentalists. Not exactly the ideal recipe for box office success, considering the huge, vacant piece of real estate in downtown Manhattan. It is debatable whether or not Saladin and his army were noble men, fighting for religious ideals rather than land and money, as the crusaders were said to be doing. I don’t know enough about that period of history to offer an informed opinion. However, it is probably safe to say that the Christians of the time were no more and no less barbaric than their Muslim counterparts. No doubt, both sides spilled innocent blood, used spiritual means to justify material ends, and so forth. So even if this portrayal somewhat idealizes the Muslims, at least it offers a nice balance to the majority of films, newscasts, and televangelists that portray Muslims as the bad guys and Christians or Westerners as the good guys—as if we would never stoop to same means to achieve our objectives. Clearly, Kingdom of Heaven is designed in part as an olive branch to defuse animosity between Muslims and Christians and Muslims and the West as a whole. On that level, at least, Ridley Scott and co. should be commended, if not rewarded financially. However, I fully recognize that those who feel like they have been victimized by Islamic fundamentalism may find this argument about as easy to swallow as a bundle of barbed wire.

A second reason why I think this film is failing is that it dares to question the very presuppositions upon which America’s current foreign policy and self-image are based. As I have discovered in a number of my recent reviews, questioning America’s self-proclaimed role as global savior is not the best way to win friends and influence people—especially Christian people. So it’s no surprise that churches weren’t renting out entire theaters and holding altar calls at the end of this film, even though Kingdom of Heaven contains as much or more spiritual meat as The Passion of the Christ. Let’s taste a sample of it:

The hero of this film, Balian, is fond of saying, “Jerusalem is a kingdom of conscience, or it is nothing.� Meanwhile, everyone around him is encouraging him to commit “a little bit of evil for the sake of the greater good.� Even though all of these people profess a deep faith in Christ and a sense of divine mission—“God wills it!� is their battle cry—none of them, not even Balian, seems aware of what Christ actually taught in regard to how we should deal with our enemies:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."(Matthew 5:43–48)

If they are aware of it, they choose to ignore it in favor of far more temporal goods. “Convert [to Islam] and then repent later!� One priest says to Balian just before he goes out to negotiate a truce with Saladin. Such an attitude on the part of Jerusalem’s religious authorities prompts Tiberius, captain of Jerusalem’s army, to lament, “At first I thought I was fighting to defend God. Then I discovered I was only defending land and wealth, and I was ashamed.� Sounds similar to what many disgruntled Iraqi war vets have been saying…

Before you jump all over me for that last comment, let me say this: It’s easy for me to criticize America for being willing to “commit a bit of evil�—kill and maim thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians—for the sake of a “greater� good—American national security. After all, as this film illustrates so clearly, evil only begets more evil. It never begets good. Satan cannot drive out Satan, as my pastor is fond of saying, only God can—and he doesn’t need a cluster bomb to do it! In the midst of all this carnage, the fact that America portrays itself as the source of everything good in the world merely adds insult to injury. Contrary to popular belief, I would argue that America’s foreign policy is the greatest de-stabilizing force in the world, not the golden source of peace, freedom, tolerance, and security that most Americans believe it to be. There is no way it could be, because American foreign policy is based on exactly the opposite of what Christ, the Prince of Peace taught us. It’s all about an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, whereas Christ taught us that retribution is in God’s hands, not ours (Deuteronomy 32:35). Contrary to what many Christians believe, our primary mission on earth is not to stamp out evil. It is to follow Christ and teach others to do the same. That is never, ever done with a gun in one hand and a Bible in the other. And yet how many Christians are blessing America’s military involvements? It simply astounds me. All I can conclude is that either they think Jesus was naïve or, when he was teaching these things, that he was referring to the way things would be in heaven. But it is very clear—in the above passage at least—that Jesus was speaking about the here and now. Why do we find this so difficult to believe?

My political views aside, Jesus also said to attend to the plank in my own eye before picking the speck of sawdust out of my brother’s eye (Matthew 7:3). So the minute my thoughts turn critical of America, my heart turns inwards and asks, “How often am I also willing to commit a bit of evil for the sake of a greater good? Do I fudge a few facts on my taxes to save money? Do I yell at my kids and trample on their wills in order to gain their compliance? Or, when surrounded by the enemy, do I ‘convert now and repent later’?� If I’m honest, I have to admit that I make these sorts of trade-offs all the time. These are the small deaths we die every day. Like Tiberius, I often tell myself that I am living for God. But then something I value is threatened, and I discover that I am only living for myself, for land and wealth, and I am ashamed. Like the characters in this film, I am often more willing to spill blood—either literally or figuratively—than be sanctified by it.

Even the noblest of characters—such as Balian—are not immune to these impulses. He lives according to a code of honor passed on by his father: “Speak the truth, even if it leads to death. Live with impunity so that your quality may be know by all, even your enemies.� With this code as his point of departure, Balian’s aim throughout this film is to take the moral high road, to make things right with God, to find forgiveness for his own sins and the sins of his wife, who committed suicide. He wants peace with God more than anything. But before he can find that, he must find peace with his fellow man. And before he can find that, he must go to war—or so he thinks. Like many great soldiers in history, Balian chooses to fight for a noble cause—the people of Jerusalem—rather than mere real estate or ego. He even threatens to tear down every stone in Jerusalem before he allows Saladin to harm her people. (Sound like another Savior you know?) He is not about to argue with Saladin about whose religion is best. He is merely concerned with preserving life, honor, and all manner of other positive things.

This is in good keeping with the Scriptures, which say, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world� (James 1:27). This is exactly what Balian is attempting to do. And yet, when you consider that, on his order, thousands of men were killed and hundreds boiled in oil, it becomes clear that Balian’s defense of widows and orphans is actually creating still more widows and orphans. So what does he really accomplish in the end? Isn’t he actually making the problem worse instead of better? Isn’t he putting a higher value on the lives of his people than on the lives of the enemy? (A distinction we make all the time.)

Thankfully, both Balian and Saladin finally come to realize the futility of their conflict. After all, both men are warriors by circumstance, not by choice. Although they realize the price of peace is high—submission, cooperation, tolerance—they can also see that the price of perpetual war is intolerable. Hence, rather than focus on the things that divide them—the rocks and stones that Balian referred to earlier—they focus instead on what they share in common: a desire for peace, tolerance, security, and freedom. It is through this recognition—that the enemies really are neighbors on so many levels—that a path to peace is forged, at least for a while.

As reflect on this film, I wonder how often we are willing to make this same sacrifice, to lay down our arms, our opinions, and our beliefs, to lay down the things that divide and focus instead on the things that unite us. Are we that committed to finding peace, to following the Prince of Peace? Or are we more concerned with proving we’re right, with protecting our self-interest? On a personal level, I have to say that I fail this test over and over again—with my wife, with my children, with my friends, and with my political and religious leaders. More often than not, I would rather sharpen the knife than bury the hatchet.

This leads me to think about an even greater question: What is my kingdom of heaven? Or, as is asked so many times in this film, “What is Jerusalem?� What is my holy place? What is that thing I am willing to die—or kill—to defend? Whatever it is, at some point, I will be called upon to defend it. And when that time comes, what will I do? How far am I willing to go to protect my “rocks and stones�? Or am I willing, like Balian and Saladin, to lay them aside for a higher good?
Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36); it is not composed of rocks and stones. Later on in the epistles, the Apostle Paul says God’s kingdom cannot be defended with worldly weapons either: “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds� (2 Corinthians 10:4). If this is true, then why are so many Christians committed to defending earthly kingdoms with earthly weapons?

Okay, you may say, if we aren’t to pick up arms, exactly how are followers of Christ to confront evil? Are we to do nothing, to lie down and die, to watch our loved ones do the same? Perhaps, but not necessarily.

As I said in my review of The Interpreter, “Non-violent alternatives have not been tried and found wanting; they have been found difficult and not tried.� Picking up a gun to solve a dispute is quick and easy. Finding an alternative, non-violent approach to conflict resolution is much more difficult, time-consuming, and, potentially, more costly. But does that mean such approaches should be abandoned even before they are tried? I am shocked at how many Christians will not even consider non-violent alternatives to war. Many have gotten angry with me for even suggesting such a thing. I’m not saying I’m perfect in this area (far from it) or that peace will be easy or cheap. Kingdom of Heaven is ample demonstration of that. But if we claim to be followers of Christ—the Prince of Peace—should we not be at the forefront of those who are striving to find ways to love our enemies without killing them, to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21). If not, can we truly call ourselves Christians (“little Christs�)?

History is bursting with examples of what will happen if we don’t follow the path of peace. But can we learn from this history? Is it too late? Indeed, can we learn from this film? Ridley Scott seems to despair of this fact, seeing as he ends Kingdom with Richard the Lionhearted going off to re-claim the Holy Land once again. Perhaps Scott ended the film this way, because he believes the spirit of the Crusades never really went away, it just went into hiding. Now we are engaged in yet another battle for the Holy Land, only this time the emblem of that land is the stars and stripes, not the fig tree. In light of this, the question every Christian must ask is, “Whom will I serve, God or man? Christ or country?�

At a certain point in this film, someone tells Balian “A king can move a man, but he cannot move his soul.� Wise words, because if you think about it, the soul is exactly where the kingdom of God resides: “Jesus replied… ‘The kingdom of God is within you’� (Luke 17:21). As such, God’s kingdom can never be moved, threatened or destroyed. So, technically, do we ever need to defend it? Not against physical powers. As difficult as it is for me to accept—and as much as it goes against the grain of popular thought—I suspect that the greater good is not necessarily the perpetuation of my individual life, the life of my children or the defense of my country. The greater good is Christ establishing his kingdom here on earth—in our hearts—just as it is in heaven. And a little bit of evil will never, ever accomplish that. If I truly want to become a citizen of Christ’s kingdom, then this is a reality that I simply have to accept.

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN Cinema Pizza Party
STUDY GUIDE:
Great film. People are talking. If you take a group to see the film, here is a free downloadable study guide (courtesy of Reel)

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections