The "cheap grace"/not hard enough on sin critique of Father Jud is also rather silly bc Jud and the film is in fact very hard on sin - Monsignor Wicks' sin, the church's sin of exploiting people and covering up misogny and abuse. Jud rightly calls Wicks' behavior a cancer. But because the alignment of faith with narcissistic abuse of others doesn't count as grave "sins" in evangelical spaces, which are never going to do more than vaguely hint that MAGA Christianity might not be "ideal," the film is critiqued apparently for not including a diatribe against gay people? (a rather odd expectation) and for not painting homophobic rants as, indeed, anything other than ugly. A truly disturbing reaction to the film if unsurprising.
I was also surprised by that critique. It seemed to me an example of losing sight of the goodness and beauty of the gospel when it doesn’t come packaged with preferred political wrappings. The question is if we can keep ourselves from the same tendency.
Yes! Unflinchingly hard on his own sin. Thanks for pointing that out - it's not a self righteous dismissal of one kind of sin but an unflinching examination of how deadly sin is and how it affects each of us.
This is an excellent point! Jud is following Jesus’ teaching to remove the plank from your own eye, before removing the speck from others. He explicitly turns away from working with Blanc to solve the case, as he realises he’s doing the wrong thing as a shepherd of the flock for just one example.
Yes this! Father Jud can only be understood as "soft on sin" if you are ignoring all of the things he's calling sin (which McCracken appears to mostly agree are a problem?), and demand basically that he be homophobic/transphobic.
This reminds me of a centrist evangelical podcast host (who I won't name) in September who shared his revelation that "the right hates evil, and the left hates hate", which, to me, reveals a *lot* about the words "hate" and "evil" for that host. It implies that hate is not evil itself (or the left's hatred of hate would be hatred of evil, and the right's hate of evil would include the left's hatred of hate), and also implies that literally none of the left's causes are against "evil." When much of the left things it's evil that we have people worth a significant fraction of a trillion dollars, while we have other people with no food, no housing, no health care, and poor education. Many on the left hate ICE, not *only* because ICE is "hateful" toward immigrants, but because ICE's actions toward immigrants are cruel, unwarranted, and entirely out of step with any ethics of hospitality and generosity (and yes, this would include christian progressives who would appeal to the bible for the foundation of those ethics). Misleading the public about vaccines is evil. Lying about marginalized groups is evil. Covering for sexual abusers is evil. Trying to deprive marginalized people of their rights to vote is evil. And the list goes on and on. Jesus told us to care for the sick, the hungry, the imprisoned, the poor.
The idea that "progressives" are "soft on sin" pretty much requires defining sin these days as "being gay or trans". Perhaps I exaggerate a little, but not much.
I think also, it's pretty troubling to casually say "the right hates evil" when it's pretty well known how much hate at the right is directed at particular people. It's basically calling those people "evil" to grant that premise that the right is all about vanquishing evil.
Oof. That is a very revealing quote. Yikes. And I really don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the accusation that progressives are soft on sin is primarily code for not being anti LGBTQ. It's well known progressives are harder on sins like racism and classism and misogyny. Press a little further on what "sin" they think we're soft on and that's the issue that's most often volunteered.
Yep, and this particular podcast, when they say there's "issues on both sides", most of the time they use "gender and sexuality" (or variations on that) as their example on the left.
That critique drove me nuts because in the climax of the film, he pushes for repentance of a sin! Nothing about that scene and dialogue was cheap grace.
It's a pretty typical evangelical definition of sin which is something like "never our own deeply cherished cultural sins." The insightful point was made that it's a critique that assumes the culture wars framework that the film tries to subvert
That's so interesting, because apparently it's so impossible for evangelical culture to see its own sins that this goes right over their heads - even at the same time as it's critiquing the film for being too "obvious" in how it reveals them! What exactly are we supposed to do to help evangelicals understand how devastating the culture's perversion of faith has been? If we're subtle, it's ignored. If it's approached head on as in this film it's too "obvious" (even as the point is somehow still missed entirely).
This. "Father Jud is remembering who he is, who Louise reminds him he is simply by assuming that is who he is." Yes. Thanks for reminding me about this part. I had a visceral reaction as I watched it. Father Jud stepping out of the momentum of the case as he teamed with Benoit (who had to be a breath of fresh air after the toxins of that congregation) and turning back to resume living into his vocation—stopping and coming alongside someone, a stranger, asking for help, a listening ear, giving of himself, there for her as a representative of God. True shepherds are a marvel, and all too rare.
I agree the film is quite intentionally heavy-handed. I think about it as a parable, and just like Jesus's parables, it's a story that asks: but how are you living? Exactly.
Left another long comment already in response to Monica, but the critique of "preachy" got me. It's the second time recently that I've heard evangelicals accuse progressives of being "preachy." And the idea that anyone (and at least one of the people who made this accusation was an actual pastor) who adopts the label of "evangelical" would accuse literally anyone of being "preachy" feels like it just buries the "pot calls kettle black" needle.
In both instances, "preachy" seems to simply mean "advocates for values I don't want to adopt" and is something of a thought-terminating cliché that allows the one using the label to avoid actually wrestling with the substance.
I hadn't necessarily thought of how "preachy" (and also often "self-righteous") so often function as thought terminating cliches for ignoring the substance of an issue. That's really insightful.
Oooh, can't wait! It's a powerful concept that really changed a lot once I learned it. Now I see it everywhere, including in some things I've said for decades and now am like, "woah, what does that actually mean?"
We watched the movie too. We're Dutch so perhaps not as focused on potential culture war themes than an American audience. What struck us, was the power of confession and forgiveness! In our Dutch Reformed, Calvinistic milieu, certainty of salvation or forgiveness, of being made righteous with God, is often questioned. I think due to the centrality of election in our theology, mostly. But here we saw the power of confession of sins and a (liberating) pronunciation of forgiveness. I know there are all sorts of issues with the sacrament of confession, but as a practice, it made a deep impression on us.
I would also suggest you look at a new novel by Julia Spencer-Fleming titled “At Midnight Comes the Cry”. Protagonist Rev Claire Ferguson is an Episcopal priest in upstate NY married to a former local police chief. Center of the story is a white supremacist group gaining a foothold in the area.
I think a great part of the "phone call" scene and especially Blanc's skepticism of religion was the scene where Jud is earnestly praying for the woman who asked for it. It frames Jud's faith as earnest and actual not a facade or cynical thing. Even after his experience in the church Jud still believes.
My husband and I loved this movie so much. We were caught up not only in the plot but in the larger issues that the film presents. Now in our 60’s we have moved more to a faith visible by our actions than from our evangelical days.
What I find ironic is quoting articles from Tyler Huckabee and Brett McCracken. I know them both from their work at Relevent magazine, which I used to read years ago when I was younger. It's funny that these two writers at the same "edgy christian magazine" ended up on opposite sides of this film.
All that to say, loved the film, very disappointed by McCracken's reaction to it.
Is it weird if I was actually kind of relieved at McCracken's review of Wake Up Dead Man after his review of Wicked? His review of Wicked was basically, "how dare they send a message that it's ok to question authority. That will lead people to questioning pastors/etc." And ... openly drawing the line between the Wizard and evangelical pastors is quite the choice. It would have been so easy to portray Elphaba as a Christ figure if they wanted to, and talk about the virtues of not going along with corrupt authorities, no matter the cost (and yes, he layers in some good old fashioned queerphobia). (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/wicked-christian-movie-review/)
Huckabee is solid, though - I've really appreciated his thoughtfulness.
I loved the movie and loved it more the second time. The title is brilliant and convicting. Today—in the face of so much bad news—I want to be awake to that which is good.
"Not being hard on sin" is the complaint I hear most often as a progressive prison chaplain. I don't spend all my time preaching the "repent ye sinners" message people demand. The thing is detainees can recite the sinners road to you point by point. What they can't tell you is how to live gently with themselves and the guy they share a cell with. They have no idea what it means to practice peace or mercy on a daily basis in a place designed to strip dignity. And they have no tools for how to live soberly when they get out. So let me preach about those things.
Nice article. Christian or not I agree Johnson has valuable points while still keeping it good entertainment. My wife couldn’t get past Monsignor Wicks initial confessional but I found its shock value helpful for character development ( Somewhat similar to the Marvel installment of the movie, Infinity War, where Brolin played the all powerful thug called Thanos. ) Authority overdone vs grace. The winner is clear to me.
The "cheap grace"/not hard enough on sin critique of Father Jud is also rather silly bc Jud and the film is in fact very hard on sin - Monsignor Wicks' sin, the church's sin of exploiting people and covering up misogny and abuse. Jud rightly calls Wicks' behavior a cancer. But because the alignment of faith with narcissistic abuse of others doesn't count as grave "sins" in evangelical spaces, which are never going to do more than vaguely hint that MAGA Christianity might not be "ideal," the film is critiqued apparently for not including a diatribe against gay people? (a rather odd expectation) and for not painting homophobic rants as, indeed, anything other than ugly. A truly disturbing reaction to the film if unsurprising.
I was also surprised by that critique. It seemed to me an example of losing sight of the goodness and beauty of the gospel when it doesn’t come packaged with preferred political wrappings. The question is if we can keep ourselves from the same tendency.
Jud is even hard on his own sin. It's such a facile critique.
Yes! Unflinchingly hard on his own sin. Thanks for pointing that out - it's not a self righteous dismissal of one kind of sin but an unflinching examination of how deadly sin is and how it affects each of us.
Yes, precisely.
This is an excellent point! Jud is following Jesus’ teaching to remove the plank from your own eye, before removing the speck from others. He explicitly turns away from working with Blanc to solve the case, as he realises he’s doing the wrong thing as a shepherd of the flock for just one example.
That's a great example. That was such a powerful scene.
Yes this! Father Jud can only be understood as "soft on sin" if you are ignoring all of the things he's calling sin (which McCracken appears to mostly agree are a problem?), and demand basically that he be homophobic/transphobic.
This reminds me of a centrist evangelical podcast host (who I won't name) in September who shared his revelation that "the right hates evil, and the left hates hate", which, to me, reveals a *lot* about the words "hate" and "evil" for that host. It implies that hate is not evil itself (or the left's hatred of hate would be hatred of evil, and the right's hate of evil would include the left's hatred of hate), and also implies that literally none of the left's causes are against "evil." When much of the left things it's evil that we have people worth a significant fraction of a trillion dollars, while we have other people with no food, no housing, no health care, and poor education. Many on the left hate ICE, not *only* because ICE is "hateful" toward immigrants, but because ICE's actions toward immigrants are cruel, unwarranted, and entirely out of step with any ethics of hospitality and generosity (and yes, this would include christian progressives who would appeal to the bible for the foundation of those ethics). Misleading the public about vaccines is evil. Lying about marginalized groups is evil. Covering for sexual abusers is evil. Trying to deprive marginalized people of their rights to vote is evil. And the list goes on and on. Jesus told us to care for the sick, the hungry, the imprisoned, the poor.
The idea that "progressives" are "soft on sin" pretty much requires defining sin these days as "being gay or trans". Perhaps I exaggerate a little, but not much.
I think also, it's pretty troubling to casually say "the right hates evil" when it's pretty well known how much hate at the right is directed at particular people. It's basically calling those people "evil" to grant that premise that the right is all about vanquishing evil.
Excellent point!
Oof. That is a very revealing quote. Yikes. And I really don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the accusation that progressives are soft on sin is primarily code for not being anti LGBTQ. It's well known progressives are harder on sins like racism and classism and misogyny. Press a little further on what "sin" they think we're soft on and that's the issue that's most often volunteered.
Yep, and this particular podcast, when they say there's "issues on both sides", most of the time they use "gender and sexuality" (or variations on that) as their example on the left.
That critique drove me nuts because in the climax of the film, he pushes for repentance of a sin! Nothing about that scene and dialogue was cheap grace.
It's a pretty typical evangelical definition of sin which is something like "never our own deeply cherished cultural sins." The insightful point was made that it's a critique that assumes the culture wars framework that the film tries to subvert
That's so interesting, because apparently it's so impossible for evangelical culture to see its own sins that this goes right over their heads - even at the same time as it's critiquing the film for being too "obvious" in how it reveals them! What exactly are we supposed to do to help evangelicals understand how devastating the culture's perversion of faith has been? If we're subtle, it's ignored. If it's approached head on as in this film it's too "obvious" (even as the point is somehow still missed entirely).
Sins that I've never heard a sermon on:
-Hypocrisy (The literal sin of the Pharisees according to Jesus)
-Greed or exploitation
-Slander (like falsely accusing your neighbors of stealing the election)
-Foolishness (yes, it's on one of Jesus' lists)
-Cowardice
-Mistreating foreigners
-Abusive speech
Sermons I've heard my whole life: Abortion, Homosexuality, Trans. The sins that straight men are incapable of committing, of course.
Excellent observation!
This. "Father Jud is remembering who he is, who Louise reminds him he is simply by assuming that is who he is." Yes. Thanks for reminding me about this part. I had a visceral reaction as I watched it. Father Jud stepping out of the momentum of the case as he teamed with Benoit (who had to be a breath of fresh air after the toxins of that congregation) and turning back to resume living into his vocation—stopping and coming alongside someone, a stranger, asking for help, a listening ear, giving of himself, there for her as a representative of God. True shepherds are a marvel, and all too rare.
Best reflection/review I've read. Thanks for sharing.
I agree the film is quite intentionally heavy-handed. I think about it as a parable, and just like Jesus's parables, it's a story that asks: but how are you living? Exactly.
Left another long comment already in response to Monica, but the critique of "preachy" got me. It's the second time recently that I've heard evangelicals accuse progressives of being "preachy." And the idea that anyone (and at least one of the people who made this accusation was an actual pastor) who adopts the label of "evangelical" would accuse literally anyone of being "preachy" feels like it just buries the "pot calls kettle black" needle.
In both instances, "preachy" seems to simply mean "advocates for values I don't want to adopt" and is something of a thought-terminating cliché that allows the one using the label to avoid actually wrestling with the substance.
I hadn't necessarily thought of how "preachy" (and also often "self-righteous") so often function as thought terminating cliches for ignoring the substance of an issue. That's really insightful.
Thought-terminating cliches. This is a phrase I use in my next book.
Oooh, can't wait! It's a powerful concept that really changed a lot once I learned it. Now I see it everywhere, including in some things I've said for decades and now am like, "woah, what does that actually mean?"
We watched the movie too. We're Dutch so perhaps not as focused on potential culture war themes than an American audience. What struck us, was the power of confession and forgiveness! In our Dutch Reformed, Calvinistic milieu, certainty of salvation or forgiveness, of being made righteous with God, is often questioned. I think due to the centrality of election in our theology, mostly. But here we saw the power of confession of sins and a (liberating) pronunciation of forgiveness. I know there are all sorts of issues with the sacrament of confession, but as a practice, it made a deep impression on us.
It was a thought-provoking movie.
I would also suggest you look at a new novel by Julia Spencer-Fleming titled “At Midnight Comes the Cry”. Protagonist Rev Claire Ferguson is an Episcopal priest in upstate NY married to a former local police chief. Center of the story is a white supremacist group gaining a foothold in the area.
Sounds interesting.
All JS-F's books terrific!
I think a great part of the "phone call" scene and especially Blanc's skepticism of religion was the scene where Jud is earnestly praying for the woman who asked for it. It frames Jud's faith as earnest and actual not a facade or cynical thing. Even after his experience in the church Jud still believes.
Loved the movie, which sent me to interviews with Rian Johnson in American Magazine: https://www.americamagazine.org/interviews/2025/12/18/interview-knives-out-director-rian-johnson-wake-up-dead-man/
And Q with Tom Power https://www.cbc.ca/arts/q/how-faith-inspired-rian-johnsons-latest-knives-out-mystery-9.7013698
Johnson hit the spiritual issues I've struggled with all my life and especially now with broad Evangelical embrace of Donald Trump.
Thank you for lifting this movie up and the commentary that expands my appreciation for the movie.
My husband and I loved this movie so much. We were caught up not only in the plot but in the larger issues that the film presents. Now in our 60’s we have moved more to a faith visible by our actions than from our evangelical days.
At the same stage of life, my husband and I are on the same journey as you.
There should be a Substack discussion group for former evangelicals who are disillusioned!
This might just be it!
I was....disappointed.....when Matt didn't engage with Hannah's (on brand, insightful) push back, so thanks for highlighting it here.
It also seemed to me that if you only focus on the men in the film, it’s a different film. Maybe that’s part of the problem.
What I find ironic is quoting articles from Tyler Huckabee and Brett McCracken. I know them both from their work at Relevent magazine, which I used to read years ago when I was younger. It's funny that these two writers at the same "edgy christian magazine" ended up on opposite sides of this film.
All that to say, loved the film, very disappointed by McCracken's reaction to it.
I didn’t realize that McCracken was also at Relevant!
Is it weird if I was actually kind of relieved at McCracken's review of Wake Up Dead Man after his review of Wicked? His review of Wicked was basically, "how dare they send a message that it's ok to question authority. That will lead people to questioning pastors/etc." And ... openly drawing the line between the Wizard and evangelical pastors is quite the choice. It would have been so easy to portray Elphaba as a Christ figure if they wanted to, and talk about the virtues of not going along with corrupt authorities, no matter the cost (and yes, he layers in some good old fashioned queerphobia). (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/wicked-christian-movie-review/)
Huckabee is solid, though - I've really appreciated his thoughtfulness.
We saw the movie also
We really enjoyed it
Loved the homily also
I am Roman Catholic and. Richard Rohr fan ant really spoke to me.
I loved the movie and loved it more the second time. The title is brilliant and convicting. Today—in the face of so much bad news—I want to be awake to that which is good.
"Not being hard on sin" is the complaint I hear most often as a progressive prison chaplain. I don't spend all my time preaching the "repent ye sinners" message people demand. The thing is detainees can recite the sinners road to you point by point. What they can't tell you is how to live gently with themselves and the guy they share a cell with. They have no idea what it means to practice peace or mercy on a daily basis in a place designed to strip dignity. And they have no tools for how to live soberly when they get out. So let me preach about those things.
Nice article. Christian or not I agree Johnson has valuable points while still keeping it good entertainment. My wife couldn’t get past Monsignor Wicks initial confessional but I found its shock value helpful for character development ( Somewhat similar to the Marvel installment of the movie, Infinity War, where Brolin played the all powerful thug called Thanos. ) Authority overdone vs grace. The winner is clear to me.