Nominated for an Academy Award, Michael T. Steele (Randy Travis) has reached a pinnacle that no other Christian has. Unaware, he has now been cast as the lead in a supernatural drama, as the center focus of a wager between God and Satan. Like the Old Testament accounting of Job, it is up to Michael Steele to determine the winner.
His Joan of Arc sister, Annie (Nancy Stafford) is the only bastion of security in the now tumbling world of Michael Steele. A conniving agent (Jude Cicollola) and his long time chauffer (David Morin) try their best to control his chaotic Hollywood lifestyle while his co-star Cassandra (Candice Cameron Bure) has other ideas. The Wager is a powerful parable examining the Sermon on the Mount and how to live it in today’s world.
Claiming that the Sermon on the Mount is an impossible standard, Satan has chosen Steele to prove his point in this wager with the Almighty. Agreeing to the choice, the true test is if Michael can live out the truths of Matthew 5, 6, and 7 in the final days before the awards. The Wager follows Steel as he copes with his career, his crumbling marriage, and struggles with his faith - not to mention a few diabolical tricks and temptations by Satan.
The fiery darts of temptation fly. Will Michael fall?
Like would write much later, we learn from those who believe and become like them. As a result of the Wager, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain
Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural lights."
The most powerful part of Pascal's argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death.