Don’t Look Up is a good old fashioned, modernist film—with a clear moralistic message. The trouble is that it is the wrong message.

*Spoiler alert: This article contains details of the plot and ending to the movie “Don’t Look Up.”
There was a time when comedians got lots of laughs mocking the religious eccentrics who stood at street corners with sandwich boards proclaiming ‘the end of the world is nigh’. Not anymore.
Now such catastrophism has gone mainstream – or at least Hollywood. It’s not just the end of the world disaster movies – but the fact that we are supposed to take them seriously. Hollywood is preaching to us – with all the subtilty of a flying mallet.
Netflix’s latest ‘blockbuster’ movie is a prime example. Don’t Look Up, despite being a flop in cinemas, is one of the most viewed films on Netflix and has been garnering a lot of column inches in the press.
Sadly reviews, like so much else in our society, have been politicised. If you agree with the point being made in the film/sermon, then you will love it. If you disagree then you will hate it. But Don’t Look Up is also fascinating from a Christian perspective.
Let’s start with the good.
This is a well-made movie, with some decent performances from Leonardo DiCaprio as the scientist who can save the world, and Meryl Streep as the Trumpesque President who dooms it. It is meant to be humorous and sometimes it is.
There are also interesting if exaggerated perspectives on the role of celebrity media, big tech and the human propensity in the face of disaster to ignore reality and turn to false idols instead.
From a Christian perspective there is one scene in which, without a hint of satire, the doomed humans turn to prayer. The troubled teen who was ‘raised evangelical, but found his own way’ volunteers to pray as the world is about to end. It is far too beautiful a prayer for such a satirical and dumbed down movie.
Because despite the good, this is one of the dumbest and most inane films I have seen in a long time. Don’t Look Up reminds me of the worst kind of Christian movie, where the actors seem to be deliberately ham acting the most cliched Christian characters they can find, and the plot reads as though it came from a Jehovah’s Witness children’s magazine!
The Plot
It would be difficult for me to spoil the plot, because if you haven’t gathered what the whole film sermon is about after five minutes, I despair. But if you want to put yourself through the two hours and 25 minutes of torment, don’t read the next few paragraphs.
The simple plot is that Earth is threatened by an approaching comet which two scientists try to warn the US president about. The president is more concerned about her poll ratings and seeks to deflect away from the approaching reality.
Evil money grabbing capitalists (including a big tech zillionaire) see the comet as an opportunity to do some mining for precious minerals; ordinary people are more interested in celebrity gossip on their mobile phones; TV hosts are dumbed down, inane and self-obsessed; the FBI are clowns; and we even have a racist, homophobic space pilot.
Of course, the earth is destroyed – but at least 2,000 people escape and take a 27,000-year flight to another planet, where, as the elect emerge from their cryogenic sleep, naked into their new paradise, the president is eaten by a dinosaur.
The Sermon
The purpose of the sermon is clear. Adam McKay, the writer, director and producer leaves us in no doubt: “This movie came from my burgeoning terror about the climate crisis and the fact that we live in a society that tends to place it as the fourth or fifth news story, or in some cases even deny that it’s happening, and how horrifying that is, but at the same time preposterously funny.”
Read More

Early in May the Battle of the Coral Sea had taken place, after which the Japanese moved their forces to attack Midway. Included in the massive fleet were four heavy aircraft carriers. It was the second day of battle, June 4, as events unfolded, Iverson and his gunner Private First-Class Wallace Reed climbed aboard their SBD-2 [Scout Bomber Douglas-2] Dauntless dive bomber and joined fifteen other planes to engage the enemy. Iverson selected his target which he described as having “two rising suns on the flight deck—fore and aft” indicating the carrier was the Hiryu…When the weary duo climbed out of the plane Reid surveyed their SBD-2 counting 219 hits from bullets, but only one of the bullets concerned Iverson, the one that passed close enough to cut the cable to his throat microphone.

Shortly after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, Marine 2nd. Lt. Daniel Iverson, Jr., was ordered from San Diego to Hawaii as the machinery of American militarization and manufacturing might were thrown into high gear to defeat Japan. Dan’s stay in Hawaii was brief because early in January he sailed aboard the sea-plane tender U.S.S. Thornton for Midway. Midway is a two-and-a-half square mile atoll located 1,300 miles northwest of Honolulu that provided an airfield and submarine base half-way between San Diego and Japan. It was crucial that Midway be defended successfully to protect Hawaii and prohibit invasion of the United States. As Dan looked out over the waves from the Thornton, little did he or any of his colleagues know what was in store for them on the postage-stamp island named Midway.
Dan’s background was no more unusual than many of the individuals that joined the war effort. He was born in Columbia, South Carolina, November 11, 1916, the son of Daniel and Vivian Fraser (Thorpe) Iverson. His mother was from Savannah and would come to enjoy a long life passing away at 103; his father had recently been installed pastor of St. Matthews Presbyterian Church after supplying its pulpit during his Columbia Seminary studies. He left St. Matthews in 1919, then after two brief calls in North Carolina, the Iversons moved to Miami, Florida, 1926. Dan’s father was the organizing pastor of Shenandoah Presbyterian Church which grew to include numerous families in the congregation that provided many young people for Dan to befriend with his engaging smile. He graduated Miami High School in 1934. Davidson College was the next step for him, and when it was time for his senior photograph for the yearbook in 1938, the staff instead included a picture of him smiling as he casually descended some wooden stairs. The yearbook editors’ caption noted that Dan “quipped with the professors,” “held down a forward position on the basketball team”, and “added a clowning touch” on campus. He returned to Miami to work for Equitable Life Insurance Company but then enlisted to become a Marine pilot in November 1939. Two months earlier Hitler had launched his blitzkrieg of Poland resulting in its occupation, so possibly Dan signed up for service realizing his country was headed for war. He was trained to fly in Pensacola and was given his wings in October 1940.
Once Dan arrived at Midway, he settled in to a pilot’s life logging hours in the air and fulfilling other duties while waiting for something to happen, and it did. Early in May the Battle of the Coral Sea had taken place, after which the Japanese moved their forces to attack Midway. Included in the massive fleet were four heavy aircraft carriers. It was the second day of battle, June 4, as events unfolded, Iverson and his gunner Private First-Class Wallace Reed climbed aboard their SBD-2 [Scout Bomber Douglas-2] Dauntless dive bomber and joined fifteen other planes to engage the enemy. Iverson selected his target which he described as having “two rising suns on the flight deck—fore and aft” indicating the carrier was the Hiryu (Miami News, 7/29/42). He pushed the stick fully forward beginning his steep plunging through heavy anticraft fire while pursued by two Japanese Zeros. At an altitude of 800 feet he released his bomb, but it fell just to the side of the carrier. Pulling out of the dive the two Zeros were still in tow firing at the SBD-2 until Iverson was able to lose them in the clouds. It is remarkable that he and his colleague survived. The Marines did not sink the Hiryu but despite what appears to have been a pointless attack by the Marine flyers, they had caught the enemy by surprise creating confusion that contributed to a break in formation and challenges for the Japanese command. Returning to base were only eight of the sixteen planes that engaged the enemy; five of the planes required considerable repair work. Iverson had to cautiously land his plane on one wheel, with a damaged wing, and without hydraulic controls because the system had been damaged by enemy fire.
When the weary duo climbed out of the plane Reid surveyed their SBD-2 counting 219 hits from bullets, but only one of the bullets concerned Iverson, the one that passed close enough to cut the cable to his throat microphone. He was awarded the Navy Cross and Reid was given the Distinguished Flying Cross. When the Battle of Midway ended on June 6, it had been primarily a naval conflict that inflicted considerable damage against the Japanese forces with four carriers, a heavy cruiser, and more than 320 aircraft destroyed while the United States suffered the loss of a carrier, destroyer, and 150 aircraft. The victory at Midway severely affected Japan’s ability to wage war and is considered the turning point for the Pacific theater of World War 2. Young Iverson now had battle experience under his belt and would go on from Midway to other assignments.
Read More
Related Posts:

Deformed masculinity results from affirming a false antithesis. In so doing, two complementary aspects of manhood are wrongly made out to compete with one another inherently. When it comes to principles such as male headship and servant leadership, we must be quick to celebrate and affirm what God calls good. Simply put, we cannot pick and choose what aspects or characteristics of masculinity we prefer and leave the others aside, or reject principles of biblical masculinity due to ways in which other professing Christians may abuse such doctrines. Falling prey to a false antithesis on masculinity is a surefire way to become a caricature and overcorrect into error as we swing the pendulum violently the other direction. Instead, we ought to hold to all the Bible calls good, allowing God’s Word to have its sanctifying effect upon us, de-caricaturing us by conforming us into the image of Christ.[37]

In this essay, I take aim at a false antithesis pertaining to God’s purposes and calling for men. For true masculinity to be pursued and attained, we must not fall prey to a false antithesis, which wrongly posits an either/or in place of a both/and. As D.A. Carson asks and answers:
So which shall we choose? Experience or truth? The left wing of the airplane, or the right? Love or integrity? Study or service? Evangelism or discipleship? The front wheels of a car, or the rear? Subjective knowledge or objective knowledge? Faith or obedience? Damn all false antithesis to hell, for they generate false gods, they perpetuate idols, they twist and distort our souls, they launch the church into violent pendulum swings whose oscillations succeed only in dividing brothers and sisters in Christ.[1]
We could easily and legitimately add the following questions to Carson’s fine list: Which shall real men choose? Courage or gentleness?[2] Nature or cultural customs (stereotypes)?[3] Male headship or servant leadership? It is this last false antithesis I take on in this essay. Of course, the correct answer for each of these questions is: yes. As fallen human beings, we are liable to label masculine virtues as vices or to label male vices as virtuous. And as Carson does well to draw out, the damnable lie at the heart of such false antitheses breeds violent pendulum swings that divide the body of Christ. It seems to me that in the broader evangelical world, the common cycle relating to gender and sexuality (and more specifically for this essay, masculinity) debates, is a swing toward an egalitarian or narrow complementarian view on one side of the false antithesis, which is met by an equal and opposite overcorrection by the biblical patriarchy movement,[4] leaving evangelicals with whiplash and blame toward the other side for the injury.[5] In what follows, the “camps” of egalitarianism, narrow complementarianism, broad complementarianism, and biblical patriarchy provide a conceptual framework through which I will think through the false antithesis of male headship and servant leadership. I will begin by unpacking the historical movement from egalitarianism to complementarianism to biblical patriarchy in evangelical circles, arguing that broad complementarianism is closer to biblical patriarchy than it is egalitarianism or narrow complementarianism. I will then make the case as to why I find broad complementarianism the more viable label for conservative evangelicals to rally around in the last section of this essay.
Before I interact with other positions, let me put my cards on the table. I am convinced the root error in many (if not all) reductionistic presentations of masculinity is that the good, true, and beautiful are treated like a buffet rather than a full course meal. Manhood is indeed good, true, and beautiful, and therefore ought to be revered and celebrated as a crucial component in God’s good design for human flourishing. When this is not the case, men will plague society as domineering despots or apathetic abdicators. The question is not whether men will lead, but how? True to my complementarian leanings, I contend that rather than compete with one another, male headship and servant leadership complement one another, such that apart from both, true masculinity cannot be attained in theory or practice.
I am a broad complementarian, which means that I understand there to be a covenantal headship given to men in both the church and home. Furthermore, since grace restores nature, and in no way abrogates it or cuts against the grain of God’s design, the call for men to lead has necessary implications beyond the church and home. In other words, male headship in the church and home is a reflection of created order being restored, therefore it would be unnatural for egalitarian principles to ground the broader society. God’s gracious covenantal arrangements correspond with nature, meaning they are not arbitrary but fitting with who he has made men to be and what he calls them to do. This is not to suggest that all men are the head of all women, as the covenantal headship of men over women is limited to the husband and wife relationship, and the church under its male pastors/elders. What this means is that natural law or created order as it relates to the relationship between men and women in society does not speak with the applicational specificity that Scripture does regarding male headship in the church and home.[6] So, prudential reasoning and epistemic humility are required as to how we ought to apply the principle of male headship beyond the church and home. But let me be very clear, we must affirm and honor nature/created order in our reasoning and in our application via cultural customs for human flourishing to occur.[7] With my cards now on the table, it is time to engage others.
Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchy
Increasingly, egalitarians are charging complementarians with being patriarchal, and the biblical patriarchy movement is charging complementarianism with being functional egalitarians. This is due in part, I believe, to the reality that complementarianism has situated itself “between” egalitarianism and patriarchalism, not because we complementarians are attempting to be the perfect mean or “third way,” but because we find tendencies in these other movements to denigrate or reject good aspects of masculinity. This may be best evidenced by how egalitarians reject male headship; they and some narrow complementarians then confuse servant leadership for male servitude, and in response the biblical patriarchy crowd scoffs at servant leadership and doubles down on male headship.[8] I find there to be evidence of the false antithesis being wrongly affirmed in each of these reflexes. I by no means think that real and perceived abuses of male headship invalidates it as a principle. I also do not cede servant leadership to those who abuse it.[9]  Glad affirmation and promotion of all that God calls men to is the aim. Using two good doctrines/principles as a proxy war is not the way forward.
Egalitarians see male headship as a product of sin, not as a good component of God’s created order. Increasingly, to reject male headship, egalitarians are forced to not only denigrate the clarity of the created order,[10] but even more brazenly, Scripture too, by speaking of God’s Word as though it is an irreducibly cultural artifact.[11] In so doing, egalitarians undermine the reality that the Bible’s calling for men to lead in the home, church, and society is a reflection of nature. In other words, male headship cannot be summarily dismissed as merely an arbitrary and now-outmoded social construct of a bygone era. To reject male headship as a principle is akin to rejecting the institution of marriage on the false grounds that it is a mere social construct, because both are revealed in Scripture to be pre-fall/sin realities, both of which are ordained by God and called “good.” Mature Christians, whose powers of discernment are trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil, will recognize the feminist-egalitarian spirit of the age we live in as evil, and not partner with the works of darkness (Heb. 5:14; Eph. 5:6–12).
On the other hand, there is a growing trend to advocate for “biblical patriarchy” or “dominionism” in the Reformed sector of the evangelical world. Now, there is more agreement between a broad complementarian such as myself and the biblical patriarchy movement than with egalitarianism and even narrow complementarians. As Kevin DeYoung rightly argues, “The biblical vision of complementarity cannot be true without something like patriarchy also being true.”[12] What he means by this is that the reality of male headship in Scripture is inherent to complementarianism. Thus, if there were a scale with egalitarianism labeled as a 1, and biblical patriarchy a 5, broad complementarianism would not be a 3 right in the middle (a narrow complementarian would be a 2–3), but a 4, closer to patriarchy than to egalitarianism. The suitability of men and women for one another as affirmed in creation and redemption is hierarchical pertaining to their roles and calling. To not affirm this, DeYoung suggests, is to choose anarchy over God’s good design.[13] He is correct. As Herman Bavinck rightly explains, “Authority and obedience, independence and subordination, equality and inequality, correspondence and variation, unity of nature and diversity of gifts and callings—all these have been present in the family from the very beginning, and in no sense came into existence as a result of sin.”[14] This logic is grounded in a right reading of Genesis 1–2 and is affirmed in Paul’s clear teaching in places like 1 Timothy 2:12–15 and 1 Corinthians 11:7–12.
In fact, this is why I think egalitarian critiques of complementarianism (not to mention the increasing number of narrow complementarian critiques of broad complementarianism), tend to conflate patriarchy with broad complementarianism.[15] These critiques are both right and wrong in their conflation. Right, because broad complementarianism readily affirms the fatherhood of our Father in heaven.
Read More
Related Posts: