This is an online article from the Christian Research Journal.
When you support the Journal, you join the team and help provide the resources at equip.org that minister to people worldwide. These resources include our ever-growing database of more than 2,000 articles, as well as our free Postmodern Realities podcast.
Another way you can support our online articles is by leaving us a tip. A tip is just a small amount, like $3, $5, or $10, which is the cost of a latte, lunch out, or coffee drink. To leave a tip, click here.
Editor’s Note: This article contains spoilers for Heretic.
Heretic
Directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods
Written by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods
Produced by Stacey Sher, Scott Beck, Bryan Woods, Julia Glausi, and Jeanette Volturno
Starring Hugh Grant, Sophie Thatcher, Chloe East
Feature Film (R)
(A24, 2024)
Just when I thought that the year would end without giving me at least one really memorable theatrical experience — the kind in which the tension in scenes is quite palpable, and you can practically feel everyone around you holding their breaths — along comes Heretic and delivers on practically all fronts. Directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, Heretic is a tense psychological thriller that does not so much dig into the messy, often uncomfortably dark tunnel where faith and doubt intermingle as it goes running headlong into it, screaming all the way.
The story follows two young LDS (Mormon) missionaries, Sisters Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Paxton (Chloe East), as they knock on the door of a house belonging to Mr. Reed, who is lent subtle, unnerving power by a stunning against-type performance from romcom-stalwart Hugh Grant, and who is without doubt destined to take his place in the pantheon of greatest movie villains. What starts as a routine proselytizing visit spirals into a nail-bitingly taut battle of wills that forces the girls to confront their core beliefs beneath Reed’s relentless skepticism and scrutiny. It is a perfect encapsulation of the many moments that I myself was witness to during my brief stint at a state university, where a young adult who claims to hold some kind of religious conviction is confronted by a charismatic individual who simply knows more than they do, and pushes them into excavating the reasons for why they believe what they claim to believe.
Despite being billed as a horror film, Heretic is unconventional in that it mines most of its tension from the conflicting ideas present in the narrative and the uncomfortable but necessary question it asks: How does one justify their faith when someone attempts to poke holes in it, not with anger, but with cool, calculated reasoning? The upshot is a film that seems to have a genuine interest in interacting with its audience, introducing them to an apologetics discussion that, while not exhaustive, certainly goes deeper than surface-level.
Comparative Religion. Reed’s approach to dismantling the missionaries’ convictions is awash in the language of comparative religion, drawing from the kind of arguments one might encounter in an introductory college course on philosophy or world religions. Using the history of the classic board game Monopoly to make his point — the kind of illustration one can practically envision unfolding on a slideshow in a lecture hall — he pits the tenets of LDS theology against broader religious narratives, framing their beliefs as simply the “newer and sleeker” iteration of the long-standing Abrahamic religious tradition aimed at controlling the masses.1
Reed’s argument is deceptively calm and laced with a kind of academic detachment. It probes the idea that no religion holds a monopoly on truth, suggesting instead that truth is as much a cultural artifact as, well, art, or a board game. It is shaped by geography, history, human psychology, and — most importantly — those in power, rather than a revelation of absolute reality.2 His is a perspective that forces the Sisters into unfamiliar territory, challenging them to defend both the specifics of their doctrines, as well as the very idea of religious particularity in an inherently pluralistic world. Of course, this opens the door to a much larger discussion on the subject of comparative religion.3
In academic studies, the study of religious traditions across different cultures, with an eye toward their similarities, differences, and underlying structures, is generally referred to as comparative religion. While the discipline is not necessarily concerned with ranking religions or determining which is “correct,” drawing such conclusions seems like an obvious and necessary endpoint — and it frequently is. Central to the field is the recognition of religious practices and beliefs as being shaped profoundly by different historical, social, and cultural contexts.4
Religious pluralism — the notion that many religions, however distinct in their doctrines and rituals, are nevertheless often found to address similar themes and ideas (ethical living, higher powers, afterlifes, etc.) — is one of the central tenets of the discipline. And twentieth century scholars like Huston Smith (1919–2016) and Joseph Campbell (1904–1987) brought a particular flavor of comparative religion to the popular conscience due to their interactions with these ideas in the public sphere, exploring how myths and religious practices and symbols serve as universal frameworks for understanding the human experience, despite their unique forms across different societies and cultures throughout history.5 These similarities are typically framed as “archetypes.”6
Given the nature of the discipline, a key argument often encountered in comparative religion is the idea that religions are, at least in part, human constructs. Such perspectives — especially when paired with other common disciplines in anthropology and sociology — suggest that religious systems are instead influenced by cultural and political forces, reflecting the needs and values of the societies that create them. Figures like Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx, who were critical of organized religion, helped to further the idea that religion serves as a psychological crutch or a tool for control.7
In Heretic, Mr. Reed espouses a view that is not too dissimilar (though taken to a certain extreme) from Marx’s. The “one true religion” he claims to have discovered is that of “control.” Religion, in Reed’s view, is not divine revelation, but a tool crafted by human societies to impose order. His words carry Marxist undertones — that religion serves as an “opiate” to pacify the masses — and critique the hierarchical structures that often underpin the religious institutions, the LDS church and, more broadly, the Abrahamic traditions. He pushes this idea to another extreme, likening faith to a clearly marketed product, replete with “updates” and “brandings” that adapt to the needs of the times. This frames the missionaries’ convictions as little more than the most recent iteration of this larger phenomenon, presenting them a world in which their beliefs are shaped not by transcendence but by historical and cultural contingencies.
An Apologetic Response. For the Christian apologist looking to tackle some of these ideas, addressing Reed’s critique of religion as a tool for control and merely a cultural construct — and therefore a human invention — is the most obvious starting point. From a Biblicist perspective, the Christian faith asserts that Scripture is not the product of human imagination or societal needs, but the way God has chosen to reveal Himself to the world. As Paul notes in 2 Timothy 3:16, using the Greek word theopneustos, “all Scripture is breathed out by God,”8 which roots the Bible’s authority not in historical or cultural contingencies, but in God Himself, whose character of holiness sets Him apart from human constructs.9
Reed’s argument that religion is a tool of control smacks of Marxist critiques, and while certain concessions can be made in the context of history,10 there is very little consideration given to the transformative power of the Christian faith. Far from pacifying individuals into compliance, Christianity has historically inspired movements of profound societal change — abolishing slavery, promoting human rights, fostering education and healthcare for the marginalized.11 These outcomes arise not from coercion, but from the Scriptural idea that humanity was originally created “in the image of God,” and therefore every person is endowed with intrinsic dignity and worth (Genesis 1:27). If the apostles sought to build a system of control, they certainly could have done better than emphasizing something as trite (by the world’s standards) as “sacrificial service,” which they actually took really seriously by modeling it and expecting others to do the same.12
Moreover, Reed’s reduction of faith to branding misunderstands the nature of Christian doctrine — while nonetheless offering a valid critique of the broader commercialization of Christian culture. While cultural expressions of faith may adapt over time, these changes are peripheral to the core message of the gospel, which remains remarkably consistent: humanity’s reconciliation with God through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). This fact is not a construct of societal need or historical convenience but is God’s ultimate expression of self-revelation (the Incarnation [John 1:1, 14; Colossians 1:15]) confirmed through eyewitness testimony (2 Peter 1:16). Reed’s view and the Christian view part ways firmly on the question of objective truth, which Christians have traditionally rooted in the unchanging character of God (John 14:6).
That being said, while Heretic does give voice to Reed’s view of religion as a construct and means of control, it does not fully endorse his perspective. Instead, the film actively seeks to engage the audience in this kind of discussion, and Sister Barnes manages to muster a somewhat compelling defense of religion in her own right. In fact, the film (wisely) keeps its cards close to its chest, leaving room for interpretation through subtle suggestions that Reed’s materialistic worldview might not actually hold as many answers as he seems to think it does (he is the film’s villain, after all!). The climax of the film hints at the possibility of miraculous intervention, though it refrains from making such a reading explicit. This ambiguity enriches the narrative and keeps the affair from becoming stodgy and full of self-important preachiness.
At this point, Heretic is my pick for “film of the year.” Sharp dialogue, nuanced performances, and an intellectually charged exploration of faith, it’s a film worth watching, regardless of one’s beliefs. —Cole Burgett
Cole Burgett is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute. He teaches classes in systematic theology and Bible exposition and writes extensively about theology and popular culture.
NOTES
1. For those wondering how Monopoly fits into this, Reed gives the Sisters a basic rundown of the wild and wooly history of the popular board game. Long story short: conventional wisdom dictates that Charles Darrow invented Monopoly and sold it to Parker Brothers in 1935. However, a later economist studying the board game’s origins, in an effort to sell a board game that is, essentially, the opposite of Monopoly, uncovered that a feminist named Elizabeth Magie had invented a similar board game called The Landlord’s Game thirty years before Parker Brothers released their well-known classic. She then entered into a series of lawsuits against Parker Brothers to be credited as the original inventor of Monopoly. Reed’s point: that religion is like Monopoly in that it obfuscates and complicates whatever “original” thing was there. For more information, see Mary Pilon, “Monopoly’s Inventor: The Progressive Who Didn’t Pass ‘Go,’” New York Times, February 15, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/business/behind-monopoly-an-inventor-who-didnt-pass-go.html#:~:text=It%20turns%20out%20that%20Monopoly’s,lived%20a%20highly%20unusual%20life.
2 While the nature of truth is not an overt part of Reed’s discussion, the implications of what he’s suggesting tugs on the threads of broader Christian doctrines and threatens to unravel them into something resembling either skepticism or moral relativism. It’s worth pointing out here that both fundamentalist and evangelical Christians today broadly maintain a position that greatly resembles the correspondence theory of truth: that is, that a statement is true only if it corresponds to reality (which is a lot of philosophical word-wallowing to say that which is, for most people — regardless of time, place, and culture —common sense). See this photocopied version of “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy), provided by Dallas Theological Seminary for the way this position influences Christian theology and hermeneutics, https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf.
3 For a survey of the academic discipline of comparative religion and how it was imported from Europe into American academia at the onset of the twentieth century, see M. E. Marty, “American Studies: Religion,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, eds. Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes (Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2001), 451–54.
4 See Charles Kimball, Comparative Religion: Course Guidebook (Chantilly, VA: The Great Courses, 2008): 1–3. Here is a PDF copy from the Celebrant Institute: https://www.celebrantinstitute.org/GreatCourses/GreatCourses.pdf.
5 It is well documented that American filmmaker George Lucas is deeply indebted to the works of Joseph Campbell when it comes to the inception of his iconic film, Star Wars (1977). For a look at just how influential Campbell was on Lucas (as well as a trove of resources), check out Lucas Seastrom, “Mythic Discovery Within the Reaches of Outer Space: Joseph Campbell Meets George Lucas — Part I,” Star Wars, October 22, 2015, https://www.starwars.com/news/mythic-discovery-within-the-inner-reaches-of-outer-space-joseph-campbell-meets-george-lucas-part-i.
6 One scholar who is currently contributing to further studies in this field is Stefan Stenudd. See Stefan Stenudd, Archetypes of Mythology: Jungian Theories on Myth and Religion Examined (Arriba, 2022).
Editors’ Note: For critical discussions of Jung’s and Campell’s ideas, see Douglas Groothuis, “The Power of Myth,” Christian Research Journal, Fall 1989, https://www.equip.org/articles/the-power-of-myth/; Elliot Miller, “The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement,” Christian Research Journal 18, no. 3 (1996), https://www.equip.org/articles/the-jung-cult-origins-of-a-charismatic-movement/; J. Budziszewski, “C. G. Jung’s War on the Christian Faith,” Christian Research Journal 21, no. 3 (1999), https://www.equip.org/articles/c-g-jungs-war-on-the-christian-faith/; Louis Markos, “Culture, Religion, Philosophy, and Myth: What Christianity Is Not,” Christian Research Journal 29, no. 2 (2006), https://www.equip.org/PDF/JAC100.pdf; and Alisa Ruddell, “Carl Jung and the Modern World’s Wound,” Christian Research Journal, January 4, 2023, https://www.equip.org/articles/carl-jung-and-the-modern-worlds-wound/.
7 Marx’s famous idiom, “Religion is the opiate of the masses,” first appeared in his incomplete A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law. David Papke offers a more thoughtful translation of the phrase, which he discusses in David R. Papke, “Karl Marx on Religion,” Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, January 20, 2015, https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2015/01/karl-marx-on-religion/comment-page-1/.
Editors’ Note: In contrast to Papke’s assessment in the above cited source that Marx “wasn’t necessarily negative about religion and its role in social life,” a careful analysis reveals otherwise. William D. Dennison explains that, for Marx, “religion, through the metaphor of opium, exploits humans and results in heartless and soulless conditions. Furthermore, religion is used throughout history by the capitalist ruling class to drive the masses into submission. Hence, communism begins with the abolition of religion, so that the plague of illusory happiness can be turned into real happiness.” William D. Dennison, Karl Marx (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2017), 74. For further discussion of Marx’s famous quote that “religion is the opium of the people” and why religion is the roadblock to revolution, listen to Hank Unplugged: Why the Future of Civilization Depends on True Religion with Scott Hahn, December 15, 2021, https://www.equip.org/hank-unplugged-podcast-and-shorts/why-the-future-of-civilization-depends-on-true-religion-with-scott-hahn/; for analysis of Marx’s philosophy, see C. Wayne Mayhall, “The Original ‘Fight Club’: Understanding the Philosophy of Kark Marx,” Christian Research Journal 36, no. 4 (2013), https://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF2364.pdf; Jay W. Richards, “History’s Bloody Mess: Why Marxism (and Socialism) Always Fails,” Christian Research Journal 42, no. 1 (2019), https://www.equip.org/articles/historys-bloody-mess-why-marxism-and-socialism-always-fails/. For analysis of Freud’s psychology, see Bob and Gretchen Passantino, “Psychology and the Church (Part Three): Can Psychotherapy Be Integrated with Christianity?” Christian Research Journal 18, no. 1 (1995), https://www.equip.org/articles/psychology-and-the-church-part-three/; C. Wayne Mayhall, “Civilization and Its ‘Malcontent’: Sigmund Freud and the Problem of Guilt,” Christian Research Journal 31, no. 1 (2008), https://www.equip.org/articles/civilization-and-its-malcontent/.
8 Bible quotations are from the ESV.
9 This is actually a very important item of note. As a systematician, my brain has been trained to begin most any discussion with the authority of Scripture. As a human being, however, and one who tends to become more practical with each passing year, I try to trim the fat relatively quickly and get to the heart of the issue — one’s source of authority really does make all the difference. It does not matter how much evidence for Christianity I heap upon someone, it comes down to one simple difference: I believe this stuff, the other person does not, and I am reading all my evidence in light of my beliefs, and so is the other individual. It takes care of the “circular argument” objection — look, everybody argues using circular arguments — the real question is whether the authority that one is falling back on (be it the text of Scripture, themselves, a college professor, or the last science book they read) holds up to scrutiny. For a discussion of this at a more academic level, check out Wayne Grudem, “Objection: This Is a Circular Argument,” in “Chapter 4: The Authority of Scripture,” Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78–80.
10 Read a good book on why the Protestant Reformation happened, such as Michael Reeves, The Unquenchable Flame: Discovering the Heart of the Reformation (B&H Academic, 2010).
11 Editors’ Note: Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett show that biblical principles and “Christian ideals have been a beneficial source of enlightenment, human liberation, and morality within the political order” in their book Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002). Many excellent books have shown similarly, including Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World (Zondervan, 2004); Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization (Thomas Nelson, 2012); Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great about Christianity? (Regnery, 2007); Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (Random House, 2005); Tom Holland, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World (Basic Books, 2019); and the following very accessible book which is appropriate for both teens and adults, John S. Dickerson, Jesus Skeptic: A Journalist Explores the Credibility and Impact of Christianity (Baker Books, 2019).
12 See Paul’s extrapolations on this idea in the following passages: Romans 12:1–2; 2 Corinthians 11:1–33; Philippians 2:17–30.
