“Ordinary Angels” shows how faith-based industry films have grown in quality and positive messages, but still have underlying problematic tropes that they are unlikely to kick anytime soon.

It’s been 20 years since the modern faith-based industry was born. “The Passion of The Christ” showed Hollywood that there was a market for films that appealed to something called a “faith-based audience,” followed by “Facing The Giants” and “Fireproof” providing the model for the genre. Ever since, “faith-based” or “Christian” films have been providing major box office receipts and inspiring negative reviews and angry think pieces.

While critics like me are frequently critical of faith-based films even today, “Ordinary Angels,” flawed as it may be, is a reminder of how much the genre has grown.

“Ordinary Angels” is inspired by the true story of a determined hairdresser named Sharon Stevens (played by Hillary Swank) who single-handedly rallies an entire community to help a widowed father (Alan Ritchson) save the life of his sick young daughter.

The film is a decent feel-good inspirational drama that would be at home in any TV or family streaming lineup. The actors are legit — such as the leads (two-time Oscar Best Actress winner Hillary Swank and “Reacher” star Alan Ritchson) — who are believable and charming in their roles. 

Swank’s character has that irascible “Erin Brockovich” charm and Ritchson, as the struggling hunky father Ed Schmit, will be sure to melt hearts. The cinematography is professional and seamless. The story hits all the beats of heartwarming, tragic, funny and inspirational that you expect. The references to God and Christianity are organic and natural, rather than preachy and ham-fisted. All the sweet and heartwarming fixes that you would want from a movie of its genre are there — minus the annoying parts that would distract from them. 

What’s more gratifying is that this is now decently standard for Christian films, with “I Can Only Imagine,” “On A Wing and A Prayer,” “Blue Miracle” and “Jesus Revolution” all striking that balance well. This is quite impressive when you realize this was not at all the norm at the beginning of faith-based genre two decades ago with movies like “Fireproof” and “God’s Not Dead.” 

Back then, Christian films gained a reputation for being heavy-handed sermons with bad acting, dialogue and amateurish cinematography. They often demonized non-Christians. But there’s no hint of demonizing non-Christians here. 

It’s also nice to see the shift in the kinds of stories Christians are telling. Early Christian films would tell stories about non-Christians becoming Christians or Christians having a crisis of faith. Modern Christian stories like “Ordinary Angels” recognize that their primary audience are already practicing Christians. “Ordinary Angels” sees Sharon Stevens responding to a sermon and deciding to apply the Christian values of helping someone in need into her life. Likewise, given that the primary audience for faith-based films is actually Christian women, it’s nice to see a female protagonist in the role and refreshingly funny to have a hunky dad as the male lead for the “Christian female gaze” to be represented. 

The movie also avoids some of the problems of recent faith-based films. It doesn’t try to rewrite history to push a questionable model for revival like “Jesus Revolution” or constantly undermine its messages with sloppy storytelling such as in “American Underdog” or “The Shift.” It also stays away from a questionable “chase your dreams” message like “The Hill” and actually has more emotions than pity and moral outrage, unlike “Sound of Freedom” and “Cabrini”.

On the other hand, there are problems in modern films like “Ordinary Angels” that have plagued faith-based films since its start. When I wrote, “Where Are All The Great Christian Films?” for An Unexpected Journal back in 2019, I pointed out that one of the biggest critiques of Christian films — beyond the general quality — was a kind of dishonesty. They claim they are telling stories that accurately show the world’s brokenness and how God can redeem anyone in whatever they’re going through. Instead, they are constantly whitewashing how broken people actually are and what it really looks like for people to be redeemed.

“Ordinary Angels” falls into that pattern as well. We are introduced to Sharon Stevens and told she is an alcoholic, but we never see it hurt her or others. We are told that she looks like such a mess that Ed Schmitt can tell he doesn’t want her anywhere around his daughter just by looking at her. And she doesn’t look at all objectionable. Even her fall from grace in the third act is extremely mild. 

The result is that we are told that she’s a flawed person, but we don’t actually feel like she’s actually so bad. We feel rather that she’s just misunderstood and that everyone else is super-judgy. The movie somewhat encourages us to feel that way, too, as we are prompted to laugh whenever she forces her way into Ed Schmitt’s life — something that might be irresponsible for him to let her do if she was really as much of a mess as we are told she is. She’s like that church lady we all know who openly calls herself a “mess” but never actually takes responsibility for her bad choices and judges people who set boundaries as being “not Christ-like.”

The movie also perpetuates the faith-based genre trope of the “easy fix,” which makes faith-based films like “Ordinary Angels” disproportionately boring and dishonest. Most stories that we love and enjoy focus mainly on the struggle to overcome challenges, leaving the successes as a smaller part of the story and a reward for the struggle we have gone through with the characters.

We know from the study of neuroscience that this is how we experience the most joy, through long stretches of anticipation and smaller amounts of resolution. But faith-based films like “Ordinary Angels” do the opposite. They will set up a problem, such as Ed Schmitt needing a job or help to reduce his medical bills, and Sharon Stevens will come in looking all cool and the problem will be solved with seemingly almost no effort. 

These problems also perpetuate lies within the American church that contribute to its weakness. Minimizing people’s brokenness encourages us to minimize our own sins and the sins of others and doesn’t show our need for forgiveness. Not giving examples of forgiving and showing acceptance of actual sinners gives us license to not forgive people when they are a “real” sinner. On the flip side, it allows us to dismiss people who want to set boundaries with potentially problematic people as “judgemental” and “not Christ-like,” rather than actually wrestle with what it’s like to forgive and welcome while setting healthy boundaries.

Furthermore, minimizing struggle and emphasizing easy fixes lies about what overcoming inner and outer struggles is actually like and sets Christians up for failure. It’s commonly known that fantasizing about the results you want to grow into makes you less likely to succeed, but fantasizing about the process makes you more likely to succeed. That means that Christian films that skip to helping their viewers fantasize about their success are making their audience members weaker.

As sociologist Jonathan Haidt has pointed out, exposing yourself to struggle and discomfort makes you mentally strong and lowers depression because the world feels less scary. Spending your time focusing only on nice and comforting things makes your mental toughness muscles atrophy, increasing anxiety and depression. All in all, the “easy fixes” trope in faith-based films makes their viewers mentally weaker.

Why have faith-based industry films grown so much in things like acting and dialogue but very little at all in their tropes around easy fixes and minimizing sin and brokenness? My guess is the faith-based audience broadly always saw the former as a flaw in the genre and saw the latter as a feature. They watched “Fireproof” and “God’s Not Dead” despite the bad acting and dialogue, so they always pushed Christian filmmakers to fix that problem and rewarded them when they did.

But Christian audiences largely actually want stories around comfortable stories with easy fixes, so they actually reward those stories. This means that those of us who want the faith-based film industry to grow beyond those tropes should recognize it will likely not happen within the current faith-based industry framework (although movies like “Nefarious,” “Exemplum” and others are showing that framework could change). 

There are some ways that “Ordinary Angels” is not quite as good as other recent faith-based films. The characters don’t have as good onscreen chemistry as “Jesus Revolution” or “On A Wing and A Prayer,” and the banter is not nearly as funny. It doesn’t give as much room for the characters to reach the depths of emotional angst as movies like “I Can Only Imagine” or “I Still Believe.” It all feels a bit too focus-grouped formulaic to give quite the level of emotional investment and payoff we would want.

That said, “Ordinary Angels” is a welcome sign of how the baseline modern faith-based have come a long way since its beginnings 20 years ago. Those who enjoy the formula will be happy at how the quality has increased and will get everything they’re looking for. Those who wish the industry would grow beyond that need to keep wishing – but will find the ride more enjoyable than 20 years ago.

Rated PG for mature thematic content, “Ordinary Angels” is now in theaters.

This opinion article, which originally appeared at Religion Unplugged, does not necessarily reflect the views of The Roys Report. 

Joseph Holmes is an award-nominated filmmaker and culture critic living in New York City. He is co-host of the podcast The Overthinkers, where he discusses art, culture and faith with his fellow overthinkers.