Faith Healing - Elmer Gantry (1960) Discussion

[–] daddyparts 18 years ago

I think the healing scene was not faked. She may have let the action go to her head in suggesting don't run from a fire.

God saved Shadrach, Meschac and Abednego from the fiery furnace but we always have to remember faith without works is dead.

So pray for peace but prepare for war.

reply

[–] Deusvolt 18 years ago

Personally, I believe that God sometimes works miracles even through the unworthy. Remember Darius the Great was referred to as a messiah in the bible. It was his people who invented crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. And as a Catholic I sometimes have to receive Holy Communion from priests or even laypersons whom I believe to be unworthy of the task but that shouldn't detract from my belief in the efficacy of the sacrament.

reply

[–] daddyparts 18 years ago

God always works miracles for the unworthy. "There is none rightous, no not one"

God often uses people we think are unworthy. David was a murder, and adulterer but a faithful servant of God.

The creator can use anything and anyone, can't put him in any kind of a box, just be ready to ask for and receive his blessing, it will come to you.

reply

[–] adamchall 17 years ago

Its funny how people feel they can even judge who is worthy and who is not.

reply

[–] Deusvolt 17 years ago

Oh, I am sure you have suspended judgment on the likes of Hitler and Ted Bundy.
You wouldn't be writing to me just now if on several occasions you had not opted to avoid certain persons because you judged them to be dangerous. I certainly hope you are not bankrupt now because you signed off all of your possessions to some flimflammer.

reply

[–] adamchall 17 years ago

Worthy of my compassion? Well Hitler and Bundy are not. Duh. But what has that got to do with deciding on who or who is not worthy of God? I'm not that presumptuous and that was what my post was about.

reply

[–] audree7593 17 years ago

I haven't seen Darius referred to as a 'messiah' in the Bible, but the Bible does say that the Lord God used him to help His people.

reply

[–] Deusvolt 17 years ago

OK. Wrong Persian king. It was Cyrus the Great who was called a messiah because he restored the Hebrews to their homeland.

reply

[–] audree7593 17 years ago

I remember reading about Cyrus, but, again, I don't recall him being deemed a 'messiah'. Can you give me a scripture reference for that?

reply

[–] Deusvolt 17 years ago

Isaiah 45:1. Messiah means "anointed (one)."

reply

[–] audree7593 17 years ago

Thanks for the reference. I checked several different versions, and they all say "anointed one". While I realize 'Messiah' means that, that title ('Christ' in Greek) actually conveys the meaning of one particular, very specific anointed one - above all others. While various people are mentioned in the Bible as having been anointed by the Lord God for leadership, only one was deemed the Messiah.

reply

[–] Deusvolt 17 years ago

That would be the Christian interpretation but the Jews were/are waiting for their messiah and not necessarily the savior of all mankind. Similary the name Jesus was also rendered as Yeshua or Joshua meaning "he who saves." Moses' chief warrior or general, Joshua fits this description for the Hebrews as he saved them in various battles.

reply

[–] audree7593 17 years ago

It seems to me it's the Biblical interpretation, regardless of which testament you're talking about. Joshua was never called Messiah, nor was Moses, nor any other OT man. A number of mighty men throughout generations led the Israelites into battle and saw God do miraculous things to deliver His people from their enemies. But none of them were called 'Messiah'.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spamdumpj 18 years ago

"I'm not sure what to make of the scene"

I think that is the point. Was he healed? Was he deaf to begin with? Was he a plant? Was she sincere, and fooling herself, or was she a fraud?

That is the thing about faith healings in general. There is no doubt that there are fraudulent ones to this day, and James Randi and others have proven it. Then again, there are some that appear real. Are these people faking it, or were their problems merely imaginary? Are they healed because they believe they are? Or is God actually doing something miraculous in their lives? Are you entirely and unambiguously sure about your answer?

That is what I like about this movie: the ambiguity. These people often act very much the way real people act. I do not claim to completely understand my own actions, much less those of God. So are these characters heros? Villians? Charlatans? Are you sure?

reply

[–] tramky 17 years ago

Yes, exactly. It IS the ambiguity, the uncertainty, the faithless faithfulness that attracts people to the evangelical movement. I am not a particularly religious person, but I've always been fascinated by evangelists. My mother once took me, when I was just a kid, to see Billy Graham during his relative early days in the mid- to late-1950s, at Madison Square Garden in New York City. I still remember some things about it--the spectacle of it.

I used to watch Oral Roberts on television, again in the late '50s or early '60s, when he was doing tent shows in Oklahoma or wherever. Fascinatin' & fun stuff, that. For me it was the show-business aspects that were most attractive; I was never a true believer and have not been born again, but these guys were something to see. Even Jimmy Swaggart was a great one to watch in his heyday, before the Baton Rouge hookers--the wailin' and the cryin' and the admonishin' and the lamentin' and the singin', Swaggart was the best show on television! Even Swaggart's public prostration in his church to apologize for the hookers revelations was a rare sight--whether it was great acting or real, we did see what it was like for a man to share his disgrace & bare his soul in a very public way. But that's show business.

As for Elmer Gantry, this film remains a great one, and is filled with many memorable scenes & lines, not to mention great performances. And a wonderful script that still holds up in today's world of evangelism-by-satellite.

reply

[–] jescci 17 years ago

It was one of the most moving scenes in the movie because of Simmons' acting. The director took us right up close and if we can believe her eyes, Sister Sharon did in fact have sincerity and faith. She was shown to have a destructive blind faith, but that came later.

Is that the latest fashion?
No, Mom, that's the oldest profession.

reply

[–] adamchall 17 years ago

No ambiguity. He acknowledged the first question without looking at her the whole time (and thus being able to read her lips).

reply

[–] marbleann 17 years ago

It doesn't matter if it is fake or real to us. What is important the person being healed believes it is real. See that is the catch, It is not for us to call these people phoney's because to the devoted these people are not. That is the kicker ,We see that it is hard sell just to get people going. By the time they accomplish that they believe anything the preacher tells them,

reply

[–] adamchall 17 years ago

Yes, good point - convert or kill is the standard marching order for these folks.

But the thing is she is speaking behind him, so its not like he can read her lips. He is obviously a plant. The best salesmen actually believe in what they are selling and therefore feel that whatever they do, its justified as long as the product is sold, this allows them to do be what appears to unbelievers as unsrupulus. The fact she squares the pre-marital sex, means that this sort of cheating is really easy and far more probable than sky god making this guy hear, either way its fiction but I think the writer gives the explanation with her other hypocrisy.

reply

[–] marbleann 17 years ago

Yes it is all part of the game, The plants. The end justifies the means. The Jean Simmons character was based on Aimee Semple McPherson who was a big deal during the 20's and 30's. She even faked her own kidnapping only to be found one day in some town in a desert. I believe in Mexico, claiming she kidnapped.. Evidence showed she was not kidnapped, it was thought she was running away with some married man she had. Some of her believers actually died looking for her. searching the beach where she was last seen. Like Simmons she believed in faith healing and was very low kyed in the sermons.

I have to feel there is something very villainous with these folks. I believe they take advantage of the most vurnarible in our society. And by that I do not mean the poor or uneducated. But people who are very unhappy because for some reason. But the faith healers and evangelists focus usually on two malady's. Illness and the lack of money because of greed, desperate people. Some of these folks are so obvious you have to say to yourself only a person who has something wrong mentally would believe these folks.

In NY there was a preacher named Reverend Ike. He looked like a Pimp and he made no secret that is just what he was doing, Pimping his followers for money. He would talk about there being a Pie in the Sky. he had various TV shows, Rolls Royce Limos, mansions, airplanes. fur coats etc. People loved him. I liked him because he came right out said he wanted your money. And people were foolish enough to give him their last dollar. Plus he made for good entertainment. He knew that all he had to do is get people to equate him with holding the keys to the kingdom and by being good to him he would make sure they would have a great after life. And that by being poor or not prosperous you were unhappy. He use to bless peoples Luxury cars, it was hilarious. I am not even sure if he is still preaching but I do know he owns a few apartment buildings in this town on Long Island. A lot of these evangelists also promise people the same exact reward. A promise no one can ever come back and sue for breach of contact. I always looked at the Jean Simmons character as being worse then the Burt Lancaster character, the villain. I suspect the writers did to because of her fiery death

reply

[–] audree7593 17 years ago

I remember Reverend Ike very well. I don't recall him ever preaching in agreement with the Bible.

reply

[–] marbleann 17 years ago

I actually liked Rev Ike. He was very honest about what he ws dong The fact he portrayed himself as a reacher and called himself Reverend implies he is in agreement with the Bible. I believe his believes people's lack of faith is what makes them unlucky and not prosperous and his church name is something like the United Church of Jesus Christ.

reply

[–] audree7593 17 years ago

Yes, the fact he portrayed himself as a preacher and called himself 'Reverend' did imply he was in agreement with the Bible, but unfortunately he did not preach in agreement with the Bible. That kind of preaching often leads people astray, if they don't know what the Bible does say.

reply

[–] marbleann 17 years ago

I think if you are a type of person who feels that listening to a Preacher will solve your problems then you are the type of person who would be easily be led astray by mostly anything or anybody and that is probably why they are in such unfortunate positions they find themselves in. If a person holds other humans to perform god like actions they are only setting themselves up to a big downfall I find that some of these unsavory charlatans know that psychology and prey upon those type of individuals.
And I also believe that know person who puts themselves in the position as a fatih healer could not be genuine simply because they do put themselves in a god like position and no true person of god would do
that. But that is not to say that I do not believe there are certain people who have performed miracles.

reply

[–] audree7593 17 years ago

The Bible teaches that God gifts His people with varying gifts, depending on what He has called them to do. Some are called to preach, some are called to teach, some are gifted in administration, some are called as missionaries, and there are people who have the gift of healing - there are many other gifts, as well. I Corinthians 12, 13, and 14 have detailed teaching about this.

The Bible is emphatic that when God's people operate in these giftings, it is God who is working in them and through them to accomplish His work. If it were not for His power in their lives, they would not be able to do these things.

Those who are truly God's people and who are genuinely called by Him to help others with the gifts He has given them should give Him the glory for what He accomplishes through them. They should not claim any glory for themselves. Those who do are often/usually chastised by Him for receiving the glory which is rightfully due Him, and Him alone. There are many genuine believers who are humble before Him, who are thrilled that He uses them to bless others, who give Him all the glory. The fact that there are some who become prideful and lose their bearings should not detract from those whose lives are continually blessing others - and there are those who do get back on God's track for their lives.

The description of Elmer Gantry as given in Sinclair Lewis' book made it clear that he was not in ministry; he was not even a believer; he just spouted some flowery catch-phrases which were not even scriptural in order to achieve his own ends, not caring who got hurt. Jesus Christ said there would always be tares (unbelievers) among the wheat (believers), that it would be so as long as the earth endures. But He is not fooled by the fakes, and they ultimately do not prosper. Gantry was eventually revealed as the charlatan he really was. Though Sinclair Lewis was an atheist and was seeking to denigrate the Christian faith, his book did illustrate this teaching of Jesus Christ.

reply

[–] RaphaelCollin 12 years ago

Dear Audree,
Don't confuse Sinclair Lewis's Elmer Gantry with the character in Richard Brooks' movie: they only share the same name, but they are very different characters. In the movie, Gantry's relationship to God and preaching are quite ambiguous and Gantry confesses to the journalist that he believes in God.
Frank

reply

[–] audree7593 17 years ago

Wrong - 'convert or kill' is not a 'standard marching order' for 'these folks', if by 'these folks' you mean Christian evangelists.

Some are genuine, some are not. Those who are not get seem to get all the attention, while those who are genuine are often overlooked. But regardless of who you're talking about, not one of them is out to 'convert or kill'.

Such hyperbole adds to the many lies which run rampant these days.

reply

[–] RaphaelCollin 12 years ago

Dear Adam,
I think you've missed the complexity of Richard Brooks' screenplay, which is why it won the Academy Award. He shakes his head yes because his wife tells him too. After she tells him to shakes his head or say yes a few times he just begins giving assent to anything Sharon Falconer tells her. He is clearly NOT a plant, as we can see when (beyond his own hopes) he thinks he can hear something, and then is certain that he can, and Sharon is surprised and delighted and moved that God has come to her tabernacle to cure this man, though this leads to her death later when she refuses to leave the burning building, believing God will save her this time. (In Venerable Bede's History of the English People, written about 720 AD, Bede relates how Pope Gregory writes to Bishop Augustine after he has healed someone not to let this make him become self-inflated or overly sure of himself - the healing is God's will, not the Bishop's 'powers'. So this complexity has been around for millennia.)
Frank

reply

[–] X-Evolutionist 17 years ago

I totally believe in miracles. But, I don't believe that people can make them happen. If that man was healed, then God had a good reason to heal him.

X

http://X-Evolutionist.com/
http://X-Evolutionist.spaces.live.com/

reply

[–] topaz-27 17 years ago

There is no such thing as a "faith healing". All of them, and none have ever been medically proved, as frauds, self-delusion or the power of suggestion.

The "deaf" man was psychosomatically deaf. Most people who lose their hearing as suddenly as he was supposed to have done are simply psychosomatically deaf, an emotional trauma of some kind leaves them thinking they can't hear.

His "healing" was simple. He thought he was deaf, so he couldn't hear. He was convinced Sister Sharon could "heal" him, so his hearing returned. His mind did it all. It was self-delusion and the power of suggestion.

After viewing this movie four times I have come to the conclusion that Sister Sharon was quite simply insane. She lost her mind when she saw a falling star, an ordinary occurance that she thought was a divine sign, that's why she refused to leave the burning building. In her deluded state she actually didn't realize the building was on fire.

Rita
life-long atheist

reply

[–] audree7593 17 years ago

Actually, there have been physical healings which been documented by medical professionals as having no plausible explanation except miraculous.

I have also known people who have been healed emotionally and mentally.

But the greatest healing of all is that of the spirit.

~former unbeliever, now a believer in Jesus the Christ

reply

[–] rockmail 15 years ago

What a load. Scientific testing has proven in every controlled test to date that NO "Miracles", Ghostly, Psychics, or other "paranormal" activities have ever really occurred. All examples have been proven to be either frauds, or remain unknown phenomenon.

Your statement is more than wrong, it is a lie.

People heal through physical means, either through their own physiological processes (the huge power of your own body to heal itself) natural substances, or the genius and science of mankind, in the form of medicines, surgeries, and therapy.

If you are allocating physiology to be defined as "spirit", than I can agree.

Otherwise, you are promoting useless fictions in the place of REAL, EFFECTIVE therapies that CAN cure problems.

reply

[–] Flight_of_Fantasy 14 years ago

Yes, I think the man's deafness was probably psychosomatic, as well. While watching that scene, I quickly went through several possibilites: A.) She really did heal him (discarded that one quickly; sorry, I just don't believe in faith healing), B.) He was a plant (possible) and C.) He was merely psychosomatically deaf. I personally feel this last one is the most probable option, but you never know. As other posters have commented, that's what I like about this movie; the ambiguity.

And I'd have to agree with topaz-27 on one other thing; Sister Sharon was almost certainly insane. She definitely had some sort of mental illness.

"I'm issuing a restraining order. Religion must stay 500 yards away from science at all times."

reply

[–] audree7593 17 years ago

I totally believe in miracles. But, I don't believe that people can make them happen. If that man was healed, then God had a good reason to heal him.

I agree. God sometimes uses people to bring healing to others, but He certainly is not limited by any parameters at all.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rgcustomer 15 years ago

God has not once healed an amputee. Why is that? Can't he do it, or is he just a mean old fart?

reply

[–] toshguy 15 years ago

As the reporter siad in this movie, I don't believe that if God existed he'd be a mean and vengeful God (or something like that). Many people just can't face up to reality so they turn to stuff like religion. I personally don't believe there exists a being that the churches define as God becuase if he did exist, he really wouldn't allow bad things to happen to good people and good things to keep happening to bad ones. To rephrase Mark Twain, if God does exist, then he is one mean bastard.

I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die

reply

[–] michaeldecker 15 years ago

I had assumed it was 100% fake, and was something the sister had concocted to rebuild the faith of the audience.

It seemed to me that Elmer wasn't in on it, as his expression was one of horror that she should stoop to such stunts. The reporter seemed to share that view - of course we never got to hear what they really thought, as events overtook them, but it was quite neat that it was left open-ended.

reply

[–] noirgirl 15 years ago

Since it was a hysterical deafness (he was terrified by the thunderstorm), it makes sense that he could regain his hearing if he believed in a miracle.

reply

[–] rzajac 13 years ago

The idea of a "genuine" healing was so fraught with peril that I hunkered down and watched the directing and editing very, very carefully. What I took away was that the deaf guy was a plant, planted by Elmer; ironically a case of "the right hand not knowing..." if there ever was one!

In other words it seemed that Sister Sharon wasn't privy to Elmer's bit of machinating, and it seemed pretty obvious from Elmer's furtive glances that they were his machinations.

reply

[–] nbreyfogle-1 11 years ago

A lot of the commenters on this thread seem to think that faith healing is real, and not utterly fake. I find it astonishing that anyone can be so gullible, and I fear for the future of this country with people in it bearing such astonishing ignorance.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though, after witnessing the ridiculously easy-to-fool Tea Bagger partiers who are so easily conned into supporting their own worst sociopathic, economic oppressors.

All faith healers are con men, you dolts.

On top of it all, this movie is based on a FICTION NOVEL.

sheesh

Good movie, though. Burt Lancaster was truly great in anything and everything he ever did.

reply

[–] Just_Alex 11 years ago

I'm not sure what to make of the scene in which Sister Sharon "heals" a deaf man. Are we to believe he was genuinely deaf and was really healed? Was he a plant with Sister Sharon in on the fraud? Was he someone who could hear all along but conviced Sister Sharon he was deaf?

If the incident was supposed to be real and Sister Sharon was supposed to be able to heal people with God's help, why was she so wrong in advising folks to stay put and wait for God's protection?

1.- I believe the guy was a plant. Why? Because if God really healed this man using Sister Sharon, I don't think God would allow the fire that ultimately destroyed the place.

2.- I don't think Sister Sharon was involved, because in the end, she clearly thinks that God is acting through her, therefore, she thinks God won't let the place burn to the ground, ending her lifetime dream. That's why she stays, thinking that God will produce a miracle and the fire will stop.

3.- I don't think Bill boy was involved, either. Sure, he eventually appreciates Gantry and his help, but when he first met him, he believed that Gantry was just a circus clown, therefore, I don't think Bill is capable of pulling these stunts, even if he eventually enjoyed how successful they (Sharon, Gantry and himself) were.

4.- I think Gantry was in an emotional crossroad in the end, and he wouldn't have the time to plant the fake deaf man. Remember he asks Sharon to leave with him and forget about the whole thing? If he has a plan going on, he would have waited to execute it, and then leave with Sharon.

5.- So that leaves George F. Babbitt, the one responsible for bringing Sister Sharon's revival to Zenith. Remember, he really likes Gantry's suggestion that the town and the churches need more people believing again. He also has some dirty business set aside, so clearly the guy thinks with his wallet, and knows what it takes to get people's money, so I think that's the guy that concocted the whole deaf guy is healed scenario.

My ratings:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5531916/ratings

reply

[–] first-things-first 11 years ago

I never considered he was faking, but timing did cross my mind. If the illness was psychosomatic in origin, then the power of his belief would cure him. That's my brain talking. My heart says it was God, that more than one soul was in need of saving. The deaf man and Sharon. I choose my heart, because it's all in God's hands. He just wants us to believe.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

reply