What counts as “Redemptive”?

Christianity Today just released their list of the 10 Most Redeeming Films of 2008, and it reminded me of something I’ve been thinking about lately.

In fact, the article starts out asking something along the lines of the question I’ve been asking myself: “what’s a ‘redeeming’ film?” CT’s definition is “movies that include stories of redemption—sometimes blatantly, sometimes less so. Several of them literally have a character that represents a redeemer; all of them have characters who experience redemption to some degree—some quite clearly, some more subtly. Some are ‘feel-good’ movies that leave a smile on your face; some are a bit more uncomfortable to watch. But the redemptive element is there in all of these films.”

I’ve been wondering if Christians are too quick to praise a story because it’s supposedly “redemptive.” Usually these stories involve someone who did some bad thing(s), and by the end of the story they do something good. Is that really enough? Is something like The Blues Brothers really a “tale of redemption”?

If we are looking for stories that truly exemplify spiritual redemption, isn’t it necessary that there be a redeemer who takes on the burden of past sin? Should we be satisfied with stories that imply someone can redeem themselves?

If we are looking for stories that truly exemplify the state of redemption, shouldn’t we expect an admission of sin and repentance from sin? Is it possible to redeem someone if they’re not a captive? If sin is denied, how can there be redemption? Is it really redemption if it doesn’t result in repentance?

Obviously, we shouldn’t expect a story to mirror every aspect of the gospel. It’s not necessary for a story to be an allegory for it to display truth. However, I’m wondering if we should raise the bar of what it takes to reflect biblical truth. I think we should be on the lookout for “feel good” movies that are only redemptive from a humanistic, man-centered viewpoint.