For the sake of simplicity I am going to divide this evaluation
into three separate thoughts. The first will deal with the aspects of
the movie that I liked. The second, the aspects of the movie I did not
like. I will then discuss the apparent philosophy behind the film and
end with some personal thoughts on the significance this film has for
the church.
Aspects of the Movie I Liked.
The Biblical story of Noah, as every other story, contains both a macro-narrative and a micro-narrative. The macro-narrative (or meta-narrative) is the part of the story that is big. It deals with themes, values, context and concepts larger than the story itself. The micro-narrative constitutes the small details that have to do with the story and have little impact on the message (such as how many sons Noah had, what wood the ark was made of etc). In my evaluation I am going to focus mostly on the macro-narrative, not the micro.
When it comes to the macro-narrative I was honestly surprised at how well Aronofsky did. That is not to say he captured the macro-narrative perfectly, because ultimately he butchered it (more on this later). But he did capture aspects of the macro-narrative that surprised me. The first is that Aronofsky built his story on the fall of man (Gen. 3). The serpent in the Garden of Eden, the forbidden fruit, and man's disobedience were all present and constantly affirmed throughout the movie. The movie then proceeded to explain how the fall of man did not end with a simple act of disobedience but that every fiber of mankind became corrupt so that even those who were good natured (such as Noah and his family) were still, in and of themselves, infected with sin.
Then came what I would have to consider the greatest aspect of the film: the depravity of man. Aronofsky captured this with sheer eloquence and astounding depth. The world he painted was one so full of evil and wickedness that it becomes evident to the viewer that Gods judgment upon the world was entirely justified. Genesis 6:5 says, "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." Many of us don't ever stop to really think about what a world would look like in which the thoughts of men's hearts are only evil continually. Aronofsky captured it perfectly. From the beginning of the film we are transported into a world where it is practically impossible to live in peace. Animal brutality, human trafficking, abductions, mass killings, pillaging, and violence are so widespread that it is impossible for good people to get away from the depravity. The selfishness of humanity is placed on display in such a fascinating and gut wrenching manner that not only does God's judgment seem vindicated or justified, but entirely necessary. The natural world has been almost entirely destroyed. Mankind, like a cancer, has devoured everything in its path until there is hardly anything left for food and water. As a result, an already wicked race becomes so desperately decadent that Gods destruction of the planet is contrasted as the only possible way to keep the human race alive-a race which is well on its way to self-annihilation. While the Bible already paints this picture, Aronofsky skillfully (and tastefully I might add) stuns the viewer with a reality we often think little of.
There is no need for me to elaborate on how magnificent it was to see the ark being constructed and the animals entering the ark. The cinematography and artful graphics necessary to pull this scene off were spectacular. The same can be said of the actual flood. The biblical story once again comes to life when the viewer sees tens of thousands of wicked men rushing toward the ark in an attempt to get inside. As rain falls from the sky, the "waters of the deep" explode and large pillars of water come pouring forth from the ground. The world is submerged almost immediately awakening one to the cataclysmic significance of this event.
Then came a very significant scene, at least for me. The camera takes us inside the ark where all seems calm and quiet. Meanwhile, echoes of wails of the wicked lost reverberate within the hollow vessel. It is eerie. It is unnerving. However, this scene helped me to recognize the emotional and psychological effect this event may have had on Noah. Now don't get me wrong. I don't think Noah and his family were negatively impacted by this event. Unlike the film, the Bible tells us that Noah and his family attempted to save as many as possible and no one was interested. They would have been entirely at peace with the destruction of a race which had rejected the offer of Gods mercy for over 120 years. However, it would certainly have been painful for them, as it was for God, to hear the fearful cries of the wicked which they had, for so long, tried to save. Could it be that events like this are what caused Noah to get drunk after the flood was over? I won't put too much stock in that idea. After several months in the ark he may have simply missed grape juice a little too much and gone overboard (no pun intended), but it is an interesting thought.
Finally, the restoration of the world and the chance to start again is portrayed at the end of the film. The world is once again peaceful and Noah and his family start over. The viewer gets a glimpse of how strange it would have been for Noah and his family to be the only living people on earth. The story ends with the rainbow in the sky, Gods promise to never again destroy the world by means of water.
At this point I would like to inject another aspect of the film I appreciated. Aronofsky brilliantly illustrates the humanity of Noah and his family. Many times we tend to view the biblical characters as having an almost superhuman level of patience and integrity. Aronofsky therefore, does well in bringing Noah back down to the human level. Although he goes too far in my opinion, he certainly helps the viewer picture Noah as a man of like passions, with weakness, struggles, doubts, and misplaced zeal's that allow one to capture, even if for a moment, the incredible profundity of what it may have meant spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically to have been the man whom God elected to prepare the world for judgment and restoration.
Aspects of the Movie I Did Not Like
As an artist I recognize the sheer impossibility in divorcing my art from my heart. In other words, my art is and always will be a window by which my heart can be understood. I suggest that Aronofsky's Noah says more about Aronofsky than it does about Noah. The film speaks volumes regarding the picture of God Aronofsky has. So what exactly is this picture of God? In order to analyze it lets go to the Watchers.
The Watchers, a community of aestheticaly deficient stone monsters, appear to have a philosophy behind them. That philosophy transcends their poor design and may in fact be the cause of it. Noah begins with the tale of man's fall in the Garden of Eden. After the fall a company of angels decide to enter the world and help the humans out. God forbids them from doing so. The angels, concerned as they are for the lot of humanity, defy Gods command and proceed with their plan. As a result God punishes them severely. When they arrive on earth they are immediately encrusted in stone and banished from heaven. The Watchers repent and beg for God's forgiveness but he does not listen. Nevertheless, kindhearted as they are, they continue on their mission, though severely handicapped, in helping fallen man. These Watchers help Noah and his family build the ark and when the wicked lost arrive to take over the ark, the Watchers fight to protect the ark. Because of their selfless sacrifice in protecting Noah and his family, they are forgiven and allowed to reenter heaven.
As ridiculous and offensive as this may appear to us Christians allow me to analyze the philosophical underpinnings of the Watchers. First, let us be clear that the Watchers are not demons-at least, not in the biblical sense (as a matter of fact, demons are entirely absent in this film). These Watchers did not seek to rebel against God and overthrow his government; they simply wanted to help mankind. God did not want them to help mankind and punished them for attempting to do so. Their punishment was the most severe and cruel imprisonment. These beautiful and soaring angels were locked within stone, barely unable to walk, with no mercy offered. Their crime? They tried to help humanity and most of all they disobeyed God by showing mercy to a race God did not want to show mercy to. However, the biblical story is quite different in that is portrays God as offering mercy and hope to the fallen race from the moment of their first sin, a mercy and hope that he prepared long in advance of their betrayal.
What kind of picture does this paint of God? Is it no wonder Aronofsky is an atheist? If this is how he pictures God then I don't blame him. Such a God is cruel, arbitrary, and tyrannical. This is Aronofsky's picture of God and sadly, our world is filled with Aronofsky's both within and without the church-some of them atheists, some of them preachers. Ellen White said it best when she wrote, "... those who are deceived by Satan look upon God as hard and exacting. They regard Him as watching to denounce and condemn, as unwilling to receive the sinner so long as there is a legal excuse for not helping him. His law they regard as a restriction upon men's happiness, a burdensome yoke from which they are glad to escape" (CSA 13.5).
The substance of the Watchers grows bleaker as we see them beg for forgiveness and none is offered-that is, until they perform an act of selfless sacrifice and are admitted back to heaven. The message here is clear, God is an arbitrary dictator who will forgive only if you perform well enough to impress him. This kind of thinking is not only rampant in the world but also in the church. It is the philosophy of paganism, or works-based religion. This type of worldview assumes God demands his creatures meet a certain standard in order for him to love them and ultimately save them. God is portrayed as an angry being that needs to be appeased. Every religion in planet earth is built upon this presupposition. It has been called by many as the religion of "do". Do this, do that, don't do the other, and make sure you do, do, do and perhaps the deity will be kind enough to pardon and allow you into his eternal bliss. But the foundation of Christianity, that is its very substance, is built upon the word "done". There is no need to "do" in Christianity for God has "done" all necessary in order for man to find pardon and salvation. All that is left for man is to respond, but no amount of self-sacrifice, no amount of good deeds, and no amount of obedience can impress God. His forgiveness is a gift and must be received as a gift. It cannot be earned and is freely available to all. While some may argue that the biblical account of Noah says nothing of God's grace and free pardon, we must remember that Noah is part of a macro/meta-narrative. As such, the story of Noah cannot be taken as a solitary tale for it forms a solid part of the meta-narrative of scripture. That narrative is consistent, from Genesis to Revelation, that man can do nothing to save himself and that salvation is, and always has been a gift of God. Noah forms a part of that narrative, and as such, must be understood within this interpretive framework.
The grace of God is entirely absent in this film. Gods character is maligned with the fact that not all of the wicked lost were in fact wicked. Many of them, particularly the women, were victims of human trafficking and abuse. Therefore, the impression is given that God destroyed thousands of innocent lives that could have been saved. However, the Bible tells us that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness". While in the ark, Noah's wife asks him if there is anything they can do to save some as she endures the horrifying shrieks of those left behind, many who may have been innocent. Salvation was not free in this movie even though it is portrayed in the story of Noah. In his article "Noah the Evangelist" Paul F. Taylor says,
The philosophy of the Watchers sets the tone for the rest of the film. God is portrayed as vindictive and distant. While the depravity of man is eloquently portrayed one wonders if God himself is depraved. A friend who came to see the movie with me commented that God appeared just as wicked as Tubal-cain, the king of earths wicked men. Since God is never seen or heard in the entire film, the viewer automatically accepts Noah as a sort of representative of God, but Noah is an arrogant psychopath. God also appears to torture Noah with silence which appears to be the cause of Noah's psychotic break. This downward spiral in the plot continues throughout most of the film.
Another aspect of the film that was troubling was "during a scene where Noah explains to his family how the world was 'created', the film displays visuals depicting Darwinian evolution"[2]. This concept that God created the world through a Darwinian evolutionary scheme portrays God as one whom uses death and survival of the fittest as his means for creating life. As such, death is not the result of sin but Gods own tool to create the world. How then can a God who uses death and survival of the fittest to create turn around and destroy mankind for continuing in the same pattern he initiated? We are, once again, left with a cruel and irrational being.
The God of Noah seems little better than the god of the Agnostics-a distant, uninterested God. The only difference is that the God of the Agnostics never enters human affairs, whereas this one does. Only he does so in a dictatorial way, offering no mercy. If this was the true picture of God I, like Aronofsky, would be an atheist. But thankfully, the God of scripture is a loving God, wonderful, kind, slow to anger, and abundant in mercy.
Implications for the Church
How should the Christian community respond to Aronofsky's portrayal of God? Should we become angry? Should we ban the movie? Should we travel to our local theaters with picket signs and engage in protest? Should we spend money producing elaborate documentaries that expose the deceptions of Aronofsky and his fraudulent film? Should we attack Aronofsky himself and ramble on about his character flaws, irreverent words, and satanic worldview? Or, should our response be different? Should we take the opportunity to analyze how we as Christians may have contributed to Aronofsky's picture of God? Should we, rather than demand Aronofsky change, seek to change ourselves?
In her book Christ Object Lessons, Ellen White says, "The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love" (415). The last days of human history, according to Ellen White, will be marked by a final merciful appeal-one which will be characterized by a revelation of Gods character of love. Aronofsky's film did just the opposite. Rather than reveal Gods character of love it presented him as vindictive, distant, and arbitrary. But where did Aronofsky get his idea? Where did he develop such a twisted picture of God? There is only one logical answer: the church.
As Christians we are Gods representatives on earth. Unfortunately, the history of Christianity is lathed with vindictiveness, violence, and intolerance. If the followers of Jesus are so oppressive and arbitrary, then it follows that their God, whom they revere, must be their role model. But history alone is not our problem. The real problem is our present experience. This experience can be summarized in two subheadings: our doctrine and our life style.
Doctrine is a fancy word that simply means teaching. In the Christian sense, doctrines are teachings about God. To be more precise, doctrines tell the story of God. As such, when seen coherently and corporately doctrines tell a story-a God-story. This God-story is therefore influenced by the many doctrines that form a part of it. These doctrines ultimately determine what kind of God we believe in. If your doctrines are twisted, then so will your picture of God be. Many Christian doctrines clearly paint a picture of a vindictive and tyrannical god. Take for example the doctrine of Supralapsarianism. This doctrine teaches that before creation God arbitrarily chose who to save and who to send to hell. He then created man and caused them to fall into sin. Those elected for salvation have nothing to fear, but those whom he elected to go to hell will burn there forever, not because of their choice, but because of Gods choice! This picture of arbitrary election with no hope for those elected for hell is present in Aronofsky's Noah. The end result is a picture where mankind is fighting against God and God against man. Mankind is desperately trying to save itself from this unjust judgment but God, being more powerful, is able to crush his opponents. However, the Biblical picture, as we saw in yesterday's post, is one of God fighting for man, not with him. He constantly reaches out to save them and give them an opportunity for life, but man rejects the invitation. According to scripture then, the only ones doing any "fighting against" are men, not God. Men fight against God and all the while God fights for them.
The doctrine of eternal torment is, also, much more damaging to the character of God than Aronofsky's Noah ever could be. It is the one doctrine the repulses the human heart above all other, that for the sins of a temporary existence God will torture a sinner throughout eternity without end. And while Adventists may be feeling a bit cozy at the moment (we do not teach Supralapsarianism or eternal torment) we have, through our own lack of understanding, presented a picture of God that is equally, if not in many ways, worse. Take for example the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. While I fully believe in this doctrine I am also aware of how terribly it has been preached and misrepresented by many in the past. And what of the doctrine of perfectionism taught in many conservative Adventist camps, which basically teaches that in order to be saved at last Gods people must reach a point of sinless perfection. This doctrine, often referred to as Last Generation/ Final Generation Theology, has done more to ruin sincere Christians than any other. A commenter on a post I shared said, "I... have struggled with trying to be perfect in my walk with God. In so much that I almost went insane trying to keep every thought under control, keeping a lowly spirit, feeling miserable [all the time!]"[4] Countless others have written me with similar experiences, and one even confessed a failed suicide attempt after losing hope under the theology of perfectionism. Thankfully, neither one of these concepts represent true Adventism, but they are nevertheless believed and espoused by many. It is therefore, both hypocritical and insulting to attack an atheist for presenting a bad picture of God when we, the church, have done much, much worse both in history and in our current standing.
And do I really need to elaborate on our life styles? Ask any person on the street to describe Jesus and they will most likely describe a lovely man. Ask any person on the street to describe Christians and they will most likely describe a band of ogres. Why the difference? Protestants may gleefully point at the crusades, inquisition, and persecutions and say "look at those Catholics!" But they are also responsible for severe intolerance toward one another, including the murderous and merciless protestant persecution of the Anabaptists. Adventists may smirk as they think of how we alone have never sunk to such depths, but what about our long history of narcissism, legalism, and insensitivity? Where do we find the nerve to accuse Aronofsky of blasphemy? Last I checked, it was the religious people whom Jesus rebuked the most, not the pagans. And we must always remember, before we attack the pagans and infidels, that "the time has come for judgment, and it must begin with God's household" (1 Pet. 4:17, NLT).
Mankind fell into sin. But have you ever wondered why? Why would mankind turn their back on someone as wonderful as God? Read the story again and you will see. The serpent (Satan) deceives Eve by telling her lies about God. He maligns Gods character. He makes him out to be a dictator who cannot be trusted. "Did God really say... ?" He asked, throwing doubt at Gods word. "You will not certainly die... " He said, effectively calling God a liar. He then proceeds to explain how God has forbidden the fruit because he wants to keep Adam and Eve oppressed. Lies. Lies about God. That's how it all began. And the meta-narrative of scripture is centered on how God has set out to tell the truth about himself and dispel the lies of the devil. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of that truth. He ministered for 3 ½ years in our world in order to restore the right picture of God. Then shortly after he left, the little horn, a religio-political Christian power, under the same deceptive power of Satan, took control for 3 ½ prophetic years and sought to once again distort the picture of God-and it did. We call those years the dark ages and it was the church, not the pagans, that painted the most tyrannical and vindictive picture of God yet. But it hasn't ended. Today the picture of God continues to be maligned. It is maligned through our characters, it is maligned through our teachings, and it is ultimately maligned in the way we treat others.
So what is Aronofsky's challenge? Ultimately it is this: It points out our hypocrisy. How many well-meaning Christians protested this film who never took the time to question how they, in their daily lives, do more damage to the truth of God than Aronofsky could ever do? How many well-meaning Christians criticized the film that effectively does in 2-3 hours the very same thing they do every day of their lives through their attitudes, characters, and intolerance toward others? The lies about God continue. They continue in our false doctrines, our miscomprehensions of God, and worst of all-our lives. All of these add to the God-story the world sees, and I am appalled to announce that far from "Gods character of love" what the world sees in us right now is a perpetual character of bigotry, hatred, and judgmentalism.
The Great Controversy is real, and it is being fought every day. It's a war against Gods government and Gods character. Satan has artfully and cunningly perpetuated a God-story that is nothing short of a meta-deceit. Millions of Aronofsky's go through life hating a God that does not even exist, never truly coming to know the love and intimacy he has with humanity. And the worst part is that the medium by which Satan works most effectively to tell his lies is the church. Better said, it is the life of the individual Christian. What are you doing to help? How does your life reflect the truth about God to those who do not know him? Do sinners feel loved in your presence as they did in the presence of Jesus? Do the broken find healing, hope, and joy in your company? Do they see the love of God in your words and actions? Equally important is the question, what does your religion consist of? Rules? Regulations? Or does it consist of an intimate relationship with Jesus? A daily coming closer to him and reflecting the rays of his mercy and love for a world inundated by sin.
This, I believe, is the real issue behind Noah. Of course Aronofsky was going to rewrite the micro-narrative. What else could we expect? But the sad part is that Aronofsky did not rewrite the macro-narrative. He did not redefine the God of scripture as vindictive-we did that. Aronofsky is, in many respects, simply portraying the picture of God he sees and it is a picture that he has acquired mainly through the lies about God that the church keeps telling, and the lies about God that church members keep living. But Ellen Whites words ring true, "The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love." God will clear his name of every false charge that has been laid against him and while he doesn't need us to do it for him, he wants us to be a part of the story he is telling about himself. He invites us, through our lives and relations with others, to enter into his meta-narrative and be a part of his self-vindication. What a high and holy calling that is.
While there is a lot about the movie Noah I did not mention I think the issues I have raised are significant and relevant for Christians today, and specifically for those who preach the three Angels messages of Revelation 14. Our doctrine determines our ability to love for it determines the picture of the God we daily behold. And our ability to love determines how the Aronofsky's of the world picture God, for our lives form a picture of what he is like. It is my prayer that Noah will be a wake up call to us, that we would take it as a call to love like Jesus and present the last message of mercy to a dying world-a revelation of Gods character of love.
Aspects of the Movie I Liked.
The Biblical story of Noah, as every other story, contains both a macro-narrative and a micro-narrative. The macro-narrative (or meta-narrative) is the part of the story that is big. It deals with themes, values, context and concepts larger than the story itself. The micro-narrative constitutes the small details that have to do with the story and have little impact on the message (such as how many sons Noah had, what wood the ark was made of etc). In my evaluation I am going to focus mostly on the macro-narrative, not the micro.
When it comes to the macro-narrative I was honestly surprised at how well Aronofsky did. That is not to say he captured the macro-narrative perfectly, because ultimately he butchered it (more on this later). But he did capture aspects of the macro-narrative that surprised me. The first is that Aronofsky built his story on the fall of man (Gen. 3). The serpent in the Garden of Eden, the forbidden fruit, and man's disobedience were all present and constantly affirmed throughout the movie. The movie then proceeded to explain how the fall of man did not end with a simple act of disobedience but that every fiber of mankind became corrupt so that even those who were good natured (such as Noah and his family) were still, in and of themselves, infected with sin.
Then came what I would have to consider the greatest aspect of the film: the depravity of man. Aronofsky captured this with sheer eloquence and astounding depth. The world he painted was one so full of evil and wickedness that it becomes evident to the viewer that Gods judgment upon the world was entirely justified. Genesis 6:5 says, "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." Many of us don't ever stop to really think about what a world would look like in which the thoughts of men's hearts are only evil continually. Aronofsky captured it perfectly. From the beginning of the film we are transported into a world where it is practically impossible to live in peace. Animal brutality, human trafficking, abductions, mass killings, pillaging, and violence are so widespread that it is impossible for good people to get away from the depravity. The selfishness of humanity is placed on display in such a fascinating and gut wrenching manner that not only does God's judgment seem vindicated or justified, but entirely necessary. The natural world has been almost entirely destroyed. Mankind, like a cancer, has devoured everything in its path until there is hardly anything left for food and water. As a result, an already wicked race becomes so desperately decadent that Gods destruction of the planet is contrasted as the only possible way to keep the human race alive-a race which is well on its way to self-annihilation. While the Bible already paints this picture, Aronofsky skillfully (and tastefully I might add) stuns the viewer with a reality we often think little of.
There is no need for me to elaborate on how magnificent it was to see the ark being constructed and the animals entering the ark. The cinematography and artful graphics necessary to pull this scene off were spectacular. The same can be said of the actual flood. The biblical story once again comes to life when the viewer sees tens of thousands of wicked men rushing toward the ark in an attempt to get inside. As rain falls from the sky, the "waters of the deep" explode and large pillars of water come pouring forth from the ground. The world is submerged almost immediately awakening one to the cataclysmic significance of this event.
Then came a very significant scene, at least for me. The camera takes us inside the ark where all seems calm and quiet. Meanwhile, echoes of wails of the wicked lost reverberate within the hollow vessel. It is eerie. It is unnerving. However, this scene helped me to recognize the emotional and psychological effect this event may have had on Noah. Now don't get me wrong. I don't think Noah and his family were negatively impacted by this event. Unlike the film, the Bible tells us that Noah and his family attempted to save as many as possible and no one was interested. They would have been entirely at peace with the destruction of a race which had rejected the offer of Gods mercy for over 120 years. However, it would certainly have been painful for them, as it was for God, to hear the fearful cries of the wicked which they had, for so long, tried to save. Could it be that events like this are what caused Noah to get drunk after the flood was over? I won't put too much stock in that idea. After several months in the ark he may have simply missed grape juice a little too much and gone overboard (no pun intended), but it is an interesting thought.
Finally, the restoration of the world and the chance to start again is portrayed at the end of the film. The world is once again peaceful and Noah and his family start over. The viewer gets a glimpse of how strange it would have been for Noah and his family to be the only living people on earth. The story ends with the rainbow in the sky, Gods promise to never again destroy the world by means of water.
At this point I would like to inject another aspect of the film I appreciated. Aronofsky brilliantly illustrates the humanity of Noah and his family. Many times we tend to view the biblical characters as having an almost superhuman level of patience and integrity. Aronofsky therefore, does well in bringing Noah back down to the human level. Although he goes too far in my opinion, he certainly helps the viewer picture Noah as a man of like passions, with weakness, struggles, doubts, and misplaced zeal's that allow one to capture, even if for a moment, the incredible profundity of what it may have meant spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically to have been the man whom God elected to prepare the world for judgment and restoration.
Aspects of the Movie I Did Not Like
As an artist I recognize the sheer impossibility in divorcing my art from my heart. In other words, my art is and always will be a window by which my heart can be understood. I suggest that Aronofsky's Noah says more about Aronofsky than it does about Noah. The film speaks volumes regarding the picture of God Aronofsky has. So what exactly is this picture of God? In order to analyze it lets go to the Watchers.
The Watchers, a community of aestheticaly deficient stone monsters, appear to have a philosophy behind them. That philosophy transcends their poor design and may in fact be the cause of it. Noah begins with the tale of man's fall in the Garden of Eden. After the fall a company of angels decide to enter the world and help the humans out. God forbids them from doing so. The angels, concerned as they are for the lot of humanity, defy Gods command and proceed with their plan. As a result God punishes them severely. When they arrive on earth they are immediately encrusted in stone and banished from heaven. The Watchers repent and beg for God's forgiveness but he does not listen. Nevertheless, kindhearted as they are, they continue on their mission, though severely handicapped, in helping fallen man. These Watchers help Noah and his family build the ark and when the wicked lost arrive to take over the ark, the Watchers fight to protect the ark. Because of their selfless sacrifice in protecting Noah and his family, they are forgiven and allowed to reenter heaven.
As ridiculous and offensive as this may appear to us Christians allow me to analyze the philosophical underpinnings of the Watchers. First, let us be clear that the Watchers are not demons-at least, not in the biblical sense (as a matter of fact, demons are entirely absent in this film). These Watchers did not seek to rebel against God and overthrow his government; they simply wanted to help mankind. God did not want them to help mankind and punished them for attempting to do so. Their punishment was the most severe and cruel imprisonment. These beautiful and soaring angels were locked within stone, barely unable to walk, with no mercy offered. Their crime? They tried to help humanity and most of all they disobeyed God by showing mercy to a race God did not want to show mercy to. However, the biblical story is quite different in that is portrays God as offering mercy and hope to the fallen race from the moment of their first sin, a mercy and hope that he prepared long in advance of their betrayal.
What kind of picture does this paint of God? Is it no wonder Aronofsky is an atheist? If this is how he pictures God then I don't blame him. Such a God is cruel, arbitrary, and tyrannical. This is Aronofsky's picture of God and sadly, our world is filled with Aronofsky's both within and without the church-some of them atheists, some of them preachers. Ellen White said it best when she wrote, "... those who are deceived by Satan look upon God as hard and exacting. They regard Him as watching to denounce and condemn, as unwilling to receive the sinner so long as there is a legal excuse for not helping him. His law they regard as a restriction upon men's happiness, a burdensome yoke from which they are glad to escape" (CSA 13.5).
The substance of the Watchers grows bleaker as we see them beg for forgiveness and none is offered-that is, until they perform an act of selfless sacrifice and are admitted back to heaven. The message here is clear, God is an arbitrary dictator who will forgive only if you perform well enough to impress him. This kind of thinking is not only rampant in the world but also in the church. It is the philosophy of paganism, or works-based religion. This type of worldview assumes God demands his creatures meet a certain standard in order for him to love them and ultimately save them. God is portrayed as an angry being that needs to be appeased. Every religion in planet earth is built upon this presupposition. It has been called by many as the religion of "do". Do this, do that, don't do the other, and make sure you do, do, do and perhaps the deity will be kind enough to pardon and allow you into his eternal bliss. But the foundation of Christianity, that is its very substance, is built upon the word "done". There is no need to "do" in Christianity for God has "done" all necessary in order for man to find pardon and salvation. All that is left for man is to respond, but no amount of self-sacrifice, no amount of good deeds, and no amount of obedience can impress God. His forgiveness is a gift and must be received as a gift. It cannot be earned and is freely available to all. While some may argue that the biblical account of Noah says nothing of God's grace and free pardon, we must remember that Noah is part of a macro/meta-narrative. As such, the story of Noah cannot be taken as a solitary tale for it forms a solid part of the meta-narrative of scripture. That narrative is consistent, from Genesis to Revelation, that man can do nothing to save himself and that salvation is, and always has been a gift of God. Noah forms a part of that narrative, and as such, must be understood within this interpretive framework.
The grace of God is entirely absent in this film. Gods character is maligned with the fact that not all of the wicked lost were in fact wicked. Many of them, particularly the women, were victims of human trafficking and abuse. Therefore, the impression is given that God destroyed thousands of innocent lives that could have been saved. However, the Bible tells us that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness". While in the ark, Noah's wife asks him if there is anything they can do to save some as she endures the horrifying shrieks of those left behind, many who may have been innocent. Salvation was not free in this movie even though it is portrayed in the story of Noah. In his article "Noah the Evangelist" Paul F. Taylor says,
In 2 Peter 2:5, Noah is described as a "preacher of righteousness." In what way was he a preacher? The Greek word kerux... refers to a herald, or "one who announces." Even when he wasn't saying anything, his labor on the Ark would have been his witness. However, some Jewish scholars maintain that Noah did indeed leave some words, too. John Gill, in chapter 22 of the Pirke R. Eliezer, quotes Noah's words according to Jewish tradition: "Be ye turned from your evil ways and works, lest the waters of the flood come upon you, and cut off all the seed of the children of men." [1]In her book Patriarchs and Prophets, Ellen White portrays the same picture of Noah when, just before the flood, she says, "... the servant of God made his last solemn appeal to the people. With an agony of desire that words cannot express, he entreated them to seek a refuge while it might be found. Again they rejected his words, and raised their voices in jest and scoffing" (98). According to scripture, tradition and Ellen White, Noah preached a message of mercy to the wicked world and not one responded. This is a much different picture than what Aronofsky paints, one in which Noah is silent, never once offering a morsel of mercy, and even lets an innocent girl attempting to enter the ark die under the crushing heels of the wicked stampede rushing to get inside. The real Noah, I believe, would have welcomed her with open arms and the true God of the scriptures would have smiled upon the scene.
The philosophy of the Watchers sets the tone for the rest of the film. God is portrayed as vindictive and distant. While the depravity of man is eloquently portrayed one wonders if God himself is depraved. A friend who came to see the movie with me commented that God appeared just as wicked as Tubal-cain, the king of earths wicked men. Since God is never seen or heard in the entire film, the viewer automatically accepts Noah as a sort of representative of God, but Noah is an arrogant psychopath. God also appears to torture Noah with silence which appears to be the cause of Noah's psychotic break. This downward spiral in the plot continues throughout most of the film.
Another aspect of the film that was troubling was "during a scene where Noah explains to his family how the world was 'created', the film displays visuals depicting Darwinian evolution"[2]. This concept that God created the world through a Darwinian evolutionary scheme portrays God as one whom uses death and survival of the fittest as his means for creating life. As such, death is not the result of sin but Gods own tool to create the world. How then can a God who uses death and survival of the fittest to create turn around and destroy mankind for continuing in the same pattern he initiated? We are, once again, left with a cruel and irrational being.
The God of Noah seems little better than the god of the Agnostics-a distant, uninterested God. The only difference is that the God of the Agnostics never enters human affairs, whereas this one does. Only he does so in a dictatorial way, offering no mercy. If this was the true picture of God I, like Aronofsky, would be an atheist. But thankfully, the God of scripture is a loving God, wonderful, kind, slow to anger, and abundant in mercy.
Implications for the Church
How should the Christian community respond to Aronofsky's portrayal of God? Should we become angry? Should we ban the movie? Should we travel to our local theaters with picket signs and engage in protest? Should we spend money producing elaborate documentaries that expose the deceptions of Aronofsky and his fraudulent film? Should we attack Aronofsky himself and ramble on about his character flaws, irreverent words, and satanic worldview? Or, should our response be different? Should we take the opportunity to analyze how we as Christians may have contributed to Aronofsky's picture of God? Should we, rather than demand Aronofsky change, seek to change ourselves?
In her book Christ Object Lessons, Ellen White says, "The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love" (415). The last days of human history, according to Ellen White, will be marked by a final merciful appeal-one which will be characterized by a revelation of Gods character of love. Aronofsky's film did just the opposite. Rather than reveal Gods character of love it presented him as vindictive, distant, and arbitrary. But where did Aronofsky get his idea? Where did he develop such a twisted picture of God? There is only one logical answer: the church.
As Christians we are Gods representatives on earth. Unfortunately, the history of Christianity is lathed with vindictiveness, violence, and intolerance. If the followers of Jesus are so oppressive and arbitrary, then it follows that their God, whom they revere, must be their role model. But history alone is not our problem. The real problem is our present experience. This experience can be summarized in two subheadings: our doctrine and our life style.
Doctrine is a fancy word that simply means teaching. In the Christian sense, doctrines are teachings about God. To be more precise, doctrines tell the story of God. As such, when seen coherently and corporately doctrines tell a story-a God-story. This God-story is therefore influenced by the many doctrines that form a part of it. These doctrines ultimately determine what kind of God we believe in. If your doctrines are twisted, then so will your picture of God be. Many Christian doctrines clearly paint a picture of a vindictive and tyrannical god. Take for example the doctrine of Supralapsarianism. This doctrine teaches that before creation God arbitrarily chose who to save and who to send to hell. He then created man and caused them to fall into sin. Those elected for salvation have nothing to fear, but those whom he elected to go to hell will burn there forever, not because of their choice, but because of Gods choice! This picture of arbitrary election with no hope for those elected for hell is present in Aronofsky's Noah. The end result is a picture where mankind is fighting against God and God against man. Mankind is desperately trying to save itself from this unjust judgment but God, being more powerful, is able to crush his opponents. However, the Biblical picture, as we saw in yesterday's post, is one of God fighting for man, not with him. He constantly reaches out to save them and give them an opportunity for life, but man rejects the invitation. According to scripture then, the only ones doing any "fighting against" are men, not God. Men fight against God and all the while God fights for them.
The doctrine of eternal torment is, also, much more damaging to the character of God than Aronofsky's Noah ever could be. It is the one doctrine the repulses the human heart above all other, that for the sins of a temporary existence God will torture a sinner throughout eternity without end. And while Adventists may be feeling a bit cozy at the moment (we do not teach Supralapsarianism or eternal torment) we have, through our own lack of understanding, presented a picture of God that is equally, if not in many ways, worse. Take for example the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. While I fully believe in this doctrine I am also aware of how terribly it has been preached and misrepresented by many in the past. And what of the doctrine of perfectionism taught in many conservative Adventist camps, which basically teaches that in order to be saved at last Gods people must reach a point of sinless perfection. This doctrine, often referred to as Last Generation/ Final Generation Theology, has done more to ruin sincere Christians than any other. A commenter on a post I shared said, "I... have struggled with trying to be perfect in my walk with God. In so much that I almost went insane trying to keep every thought under control, keeping a lowly spirit, feeling miserable [all the time!]"[4] Countless others have written me with similar experiences, and one even confessed a failed suicide attempt after losing hope under the theology of perfectionism. Thankfully, neither one of these concepts represent true Adventism, but they are nevertheless believed and espoused by many. It is therefore, both hypocritical and insulting to attack an atheist for presenting a bad picture of God when we, the church, have done much, much worse both in history and in our current standing.
And do I really need to elaborate on our life styles? Ask any person on the street to describe Jesus and they will most likely describe a lovely man. Ask any person on the street to describe Christians and they will most likely describe a band of ogres. Why the difference? Protestants may gleefully point at the crusades, inquisition, and persecutions and say "look at those Catholics!" But they are also responsible for severe intolerance toward one another, including the murderous and merciless protestant persecution of the Anabaptists. Adventists may smirk as they think of how we alone have never sunk to such depths, but what about our long history of narcissism, legalism, and insensitivity? Where do we find the nerve to accuse Aronofsky of blasphemy? Last I checked, it was the religious people whom Jesus rebuked the most, not the pagans. And we must always remember, before we attack the pagans and infidels, that "the time has come for judgment, and it must begin with God's household" (1 Pet. 4:17, NLT).
Mankind fell into sin. But have you ever wondered why? Why would mankind turn their back on someone as wonderful as God? Read the story again and you will see. The serpent (Satan) deceives Eve by telling her lies about God. He maligns Gods character. He makes him out to be a dictator who cannot be trusted. "Did God really say... ?" He asked, throwing doubt at Gods word. "You will not certainly die... " He said, effectively calling God a liar. He then proceeds to explain how God has forbidden the fruit because he wants to keep Adam and Eve oppressed. Lies. Lies about God. That's how it all began. And the meta-narrative of scripture is centered on how God has set out to tell the truth about himself and dispel the lies of the devil. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of that truth. He ministered for 3 ½ years in our world in order to restore the right picture of God. Then shortly after he left, the little horn, a religio-political Christian power, under the same deceptive power of Satan, took control for 3 ½ prophetic years and sought to once again distort the picture of God-and it did. We call those years the dark ages and it was the church, not the pagans, that painted the most tyrannical and vindictive picture of God yet. But it hasn't ended. Today the picture of God continues to be maligned. It is maligned through our characters, it is maligned through our teachings, and it is ultimately maligned in the way we treat others.
So what is Aronofsky's challenge? Ultimately it is this: It points out our hypocrisy. How many well-meaning Christians protested this film who never took the time to question how they, in their daily lives, do more damage to the truth of God than Aronofsky could ever do? How many well-meaning Christians criticized the film that effectively does in 2-3 hours the very same thing they do every day of their lives through their attitudes, characters, and intolerance toward others? The lies about God continue. They continue in our false doctrines, our miscomprehensions of God, and worst of all-our lives. All of these add to the God-story the world sees, and I am appalled to announce that far from "Gods character of love" what the world sees in us right now is a perpetual character of bigotry, hatred, and judgmentalism.
The Great Controversy is real, and it is being fought every day. It's a war against Gods government and Gods character. Satan has artfully and cunningly perpetuated a God-story that is nothing short of a meta-deceit. Millions of Aronofsky's go through life hating a God that does not even exist, never truly coming to know the love and intimacy he has with humanity. And the worst part is that the medium by which Satan works most effectively to tell his lies is the church. Better said, it is the life of the individual Christian. What are you doing to help? How does your life reflect the truth about God to those who do not know him? Do sinners feel loved in your presence as they did in the presence of Jesus? Do the broken find healing, hope, and joy in your company? Do they see the love of God in your words and actions? Equally important is the question, what does your religion consist of? Rules? Regulations? Or does it consist of an intimate relationship with Jesus? A daily coming closer to him and reflecting the rays of his mercy and love for a world inundated by sin.
This, I believe, is the real issue behind Noah. Of course Aronofsky was going to rewrite the micro-narrative. What else could we expect? But the sad part is that Aronofsky did not rewrite the macro-narrative. He did not redefine the God of scripture as vindictive-we did that. Aronofsky is, in many respects, simply portraying the picture of God he sees and it is a picture that he has acquired mainly through the lies about God that the church keeps telling, and the lies about God that church members keep living. But Ellen Whites words ring true, "The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love." God will clear his name of every false charge that has been laid against him and while he doesn't need us to do it for him, he wants us to be a part of the story he is telling about himself. He invites us, through our lives and relations with others, to enter into his meta-narrative and be a part of his self-vindication. What a high and holy calling that is.
While there is a lot about the movie Noah I did not mention I think the issues I have raised are significant and relevant for Christians today, and specifically for those who preach the three Angels messages of Revelation 14. Our doctrine determines our ability to love for it determines the picture of the God we daily behold. And our ability to love determines how the Aronofsky's of the world picture God, for our lives form a picture of what he is like. It is my prayer that Noah will be a wake up call to us, that we would take it as a call to love like Jesus and present the last message of mercy to a dying world-a revelation of Gods character of love.
