Sam’s Son

Directed by Michael Landon; distributed by Invictus Entertainment. Rated PG.

Michael Landon—whose name and screen abilities, as director as well as actor—became synonymous with television’s long-running “Little House on the Prairie,” has entered his first full-length feature film amid the 1984 run of summer blockbusters. Distributed by Utah-based Invictus Entertainment, Sam’s Son is aimed at the family market, offering what its producers see as a good, moral film—almost an anomaly among the sometimes embarrassing and often violent episodes being served up elsewhere. It almost makes it.

Sam’s Son is close to being autobiographical. The “son” (Timothy Patrick Murphy) is named Eugene Orowitz, Landon’s real name; and the story is based on Landon’s own journey to stardom via a college athletic scholarship awarded for his javelin-throwing skill. The relationship between son Gene and father Sam (well played by veteran Eli Wallach) is the film’s basic plot, and it’s a one- if not two-hanky story by the time the final credits roll.

By and large, this is an enjoyable film and, yes, there are some positive messages in it. But it is not enjoyable listening to teenagers curse as if that were the norm for youth; and the deceit worked by father and son to allow the boy to retain his forbidden long hair throughout competitive track meets is not an acceptable moral message for Christians. Neither is the attempt to tie Gene’s long hair to a biblical Samson-like strength that enables his athletic ability particularly realistic. It comes off only as a “cute” gimmick.

But Sam’s Son is one film families can share without embarrassment. The objections noted might even serve as discussion starters among sensitive families. And Landon and Invictus should be commended for producing a film that is more concerned with morality than mere entertainment.

Reviewed by Carol Thiessen.

Directed by Ann Hui.

It should be obvious to even the most myopic ex-radical shivering out there in the Big Chill that the wrong side won the war in Vietnam. Granted, the Vietnamese regime has not exceeded the widespread atrocities of Cambodia’s Pol Pot, but clearly in both cases we are quibling over degrees of numbing social and political depravity. U.S. involvement in the conflict has been subject to the ruminations of several fine Hollywood directors, but Boat People is the first film of merit to come out of Southeast Asia itself that dares to be critical of Uncle Ho’s victorious army.

Director Ann Hui’s remarkable story of repression and terror documents in appalling detail the odyssey of one Japanese photojournalist, present at the creation of the new Vietnam, who returns years later to record the wonders of the enlightened socialist state. Such naiveté erodes progressively with each click of the camera’s shutter as he easily penetrates the crude utopian façade. His efforts to aid one family, however, do little to stanch the suffering that surges through this torn human artery called Vietnam.

Technically, Boat People is often substandard. Hui directs with conviction but little imagination. Still the fine troupe of actors overcomes the film’s many limitations to construct a chilling portrait of life under a Stalinist regime. The events graphically depicted in the movie have been substantiated by countless refugees.

That Boat People was produced with the active cooperation of the Chinese government makes Hui and her Hong Kong backers particularly vulnerable to charges of propaganda. China is certainly not known for its in-house criticism, and remains a sworn enemy of Vietnam. Nevertheless, for once political hypocrisy has served the truth. In the face of all independent verification, however, the French government astoundingly compounded the socialist charade by attempting to ban the movie from the Cannes Film Festival; Boat People was eventually shown out of competition. Clearly Ann Hui has fashioned a major controversy out of a minor movie by her audacious exposé of one tainted Southeast Asian paradise. In Hong Kong, meanwhile, Boat People is a runaway hit. Box-office receipts for Ho Chi Minh City go unreported.

Reviewed by Harry M. Cheney, a writer in Southern California.

Experts fault Maranatha Campus Ministries for authoritarian practices and questionable theology.

Bobby and Jan Bonner found out in 1981 that getting out of Maranatha Campus Ministries (MCM) is not as easy as getting in. Maranatha is a charismatic Christian campus ministry based in Gainesville, Florida. When word reached MCM headquarters that Bobby wanted to leave the organization to return to school, one of Maranatha’s top leaders prophesied that the departure wasn’t God’s will. The leader, Joe Smith, told the Bonners they would face death and destruction if they left.

“I was terrified,” remembers Jan Bonner, and they stayed. But in the last two years the Bonners and some 30 other full-time Maranatha staff members have resigned, in large part due to perceived heavy-handed tactics in the group.

MCM was founded in 1972 by Robert Weiner, who serves as president. Weiner was reared in a legalistic church home. As a young man, he dropped out of Trinity College in Deerfield, Illinois, to join the air force. There he became a Christian through the ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ. He and his wife, Rose, have since dedicated their lives to reaching young people with the gospel.

In 12 years, Weiner’s organization has grown from a single ministry at Murray State University in Kentucky to some 100 campus chapters in the United States and in 16 foreign countries. Maranatha came to the attention of cult-watching organizations in 1981. Inquiries were coming in from parents worried that their children had unwittingly become part of a cult. They reported that their sons and daughters had undergone radical personality changes. Typically, their grades were failing, and they were giving Maranatha large sums of money that had been earmarked for education. Some were refusing medical and dental treatment, believing it demonstrated a lack of faith. Members told parents who questioned Maranatha that they were being used by the Devil.

To address these concerns, MCM in 1982 asked the El Toro, California-based Christian Research Institute (CRI) for a letter of endorsement. Weiner says he was shocked when CRI responded with reservations about some of Maranatha’s beliefs and practices, CRI has monitored cults and aberrational Christian groups for more than two decades under the leadership of Walter Martin, one of the foremost evangelical authorities in the field.

In November 1982, several cult-watching specialists met with the MCM leadership in Santa Barbara, California. Maranatha brought along a team of theologians representing a charismatic viewpoint, including Charles Farah of Oral Roberts University and CBN University’s Jerry Horner. Maranatha’s leaders acknowledged there were problems. As a result of the meeting, a six-member ad hoc committee was formed to help MCM address its shortcomings.

More than a year later, frustrated at Maranatha’s lack of progress, that committee issued an evaluative statement highly critical of the organization. It was signed by James Bjornstad, academic dean at Northeastern Bible College; Steve Cannon, a regional director of Personal Freedom Outreach; Ronald Enroth, sociology professor at Westmont College; Karen Hoyt, executive director of Spiritual Counterfeits Project; Gordon Lewis, theology professor at Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary; and Brian Onken of CRI. Together, committee members have more than 50 years of cult-watching experience.

In its report, the committee says Maranatha employs faulty methods of biblical interpretation, questionable practices, and deficient theology—including an unclear view of the Trinity. The committee expressed skepticism about the regular revelations or “words from the Lord” that Maranatha leaders and members claim to receive. “It appears to us that there is at least the potential for the final authority to rest more with the ‘revelations’ of MCM leaders than the Bible,” the report states. “MCM has an authoritarian orientation with potential negative consequences for members.”

Unlike other major campus ministries, which operate as Parachurch organizations, Maranatha functions as a denomination. Campus chapters are called churches. Local leaders are pastors, typically in their early- to mid-20s, with little or no formal theological training.

Pastors exercise authority over members. They have controlled the selection of marriage partners. (Maranatha members are prohibited from dating. According to Weiner’s “dating revelation,” dating is a worldly method of selecting a mate.) Some pastors have kept detailed records of members’ financial contributions. Those who don’t give enough have been admonished for having a “spirit of stinginess.” In an extreme case at the University of Kentucky, there was a revelation that women were not to use tampons. To members, disobeying a pastor is tantamount to disobeying God.

In turn, former pastors report having felt intimidated by the leadership in Gainesville. After Robert Pierce and his wife, Teena, were married, they wanted to take a few weeks off. Instead, they were told to start a new ministry at the University of Arizona. “We hardly saw each other for four months,” Robert Pierce says. “I was afraid to disagree [with the leadership]. There isn’t a pastor in Maranatha who isn’t scared to death of Bob Weiner.” Pierce says his wife suffered an emotional breakdown; they are now going through a divorce.

Although the ad hoc committee calls Maranatha an evangelical Christian ministry, the report concludes, “Until we have clearer understanding of the changes which MCM claims are being implemented, and until we see more discernible evidence of change in the lives of people being impacted by MCM, we would not recommend this organization to anyone.” Committee chairman Bjornstad says the language would have been harsher had it not been for concerns about legal reprisals.

Weiner says his ministry has done all it can to address the problems raised by the committee. “We’ve learned a lot, especially in the area of doctrine and Bible interpretation,” he says. “We spent more than $46,000 to bring our [Bible study materials] up to perfect theological standards.” However, committee members say the changes did not reach the heart of their objections.

Weiner says these objections are best explained by what he calls the committee’s anticharismatic bias. “Two of the gentlemen on the theological committee [Bjornstad and Lewis] teach at schools that forbid speaking in tongues,” he says. He also is skeptical of the claims of two committee members who say they are charismatics. In addition, Weiner charges that the committee based its report on interviews with a few disgruntled former members.

CBN’s Horner says Maranatha has made “great strides” since the Santa Barbara meeting. “I don’t agree with all their theology, but Maranatha is within the mainstream of orthodox Christianity,” he maintains. However, he says he isn’t qualified to comment on MCM’s practices.

Enroth, author of four books and a frequent lecturer on cults and aberrational groups, asserts there are clear parallels between Maranatha and the cults. Many who leave Maranatha are plagued by depression and feelings of guilt, he says. They are spiritually disillusioned, and have trouble adjusting to life, especially in the area of decision making.

“Being out of Maranatha was harder than being in it,” says Kathy Myatt, who left in 1981 after three years in the organization. She says she was led to believe that to leave was to risk her salvation. “I felt lost without a shepherdess to tell me if what I was doing was of God or of the Devil.” She spent several months in psychological counseling, and more than once considered suicide.

The committee faults Maranatha for discouraging critical thinking. Former members report that when they questioned Maranatha’s beliefs and practices, pastors attempted to deliver them from spirits of rebellion or “mind idolatry.” “There is clearly the possibility of exploitation in the guise of spirituality,” says Bjornstad, “and I doubt they’re even aware of it.” Enroth adds, “What we call control, they regard as caring for the flock.”

Several former pastors say they recognized problems in MCM and hoped the Santa Barbara meeting would lead to reform. But not long after that meeting, word circulated that Rose Weiner and Maranatha leader Walter Walker had received a “word from the Lord.” According to their revelation, those who had gathered in Santa Barbara were under a “spirit of deception.” CHRISTIANITY TODAY spoke with six former pastors who confirmed this. Weiner says he knows nothing about it.

Despite the controversy, MCM appears to enjoy a good reputation among many Christian leaders. Among those scheduled to speak at its national conference next month are Pat Boone, James Robison, Pat Robertson, Dee Jepsen, and Richard Lovelace. None of the speakers contacted by CHRISTIANITY TODAY were aware that Maranatha was being examined by the ad hoc committee.

Some of the tactics Maranatha has used to garner apparent endorsements are questionable. A picture of Billy Graham and a statement by Graham about evangelizing international students appeared on a Maranatha fund-raising pamphlet without the knowledge or permission of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

An impressive list of endorsements—including one from President Reagan—helped Maranatha gain membership in the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). The NAE did question Maranatha about a problem on the campus of Ohio State University. MCM explained that there was a conflict with a leader there who had since left the organization. Weiner says there was no need to tell the NAE about the ad hoc committee. “The committee has never said there was anything wrong with our Christianity or our evangelical status,” he reasons.

The MCM leader in question at Ohio State was Steve Jellicorse, 27, formerly a regional director of elders. He had doubts about what was going on in Maranatha. He got into trouble for approving the actions of a pastor who had pulled his church out of the organization. Jellicorse was flown to Gainesville, where the leadership accused him of being a betrayer, and attempted to cast demons out of him. Finally, he says, after Smith—one of Maranatha’s top leaders—told him they were going to have to “take control” of his life for a while, Jellicorse resigned.

Despite the criticisms, few doubt the sincerity of Maranatha’s leadership. Many have been brought to Christ through Maranatha. Members display an intense desire to follow God and live holy lives. But in practice, this has translated too easily into an obsession with being perfect.

Critics say things may be changing, but that Maranatha has a long way to go. Former pastor Stuart Small, who left about a year ago, says the recent changes are mostly for public relations purposes and that the “wheels of authoritarian control are still turning.”

Even charismatic theologians who have represented Maranatha to the committee do not support the ministry uncritically. Farah and Horner believe the committee overstated its case, and they have called for Maranatha’s acceptance by the Christian community. Yet both affirm that the committee’s concerns are legitimate. Farah says Maranatha has demonstrated “extremist tendencies” in theory and in practice. He says the organization should submit itself to mature Christians capable of providing guidance.

At least for now, however, further dialogue between Maranatha and the ad hoc committee appears unlikely.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.