some thoughts on Noah, God’s Not Dead and art [part 1]
When it comes to art in the Christian sub-culture, one of the greatest challenges is not being able to being willing to take off your critical thinking hat. When I teach The Gospel in the Movies classes, the most important “rule” I have is that film is art. It is not a moral guide for our lives or a truth to patterns our life after. This is true of art that has the label “Christian” too.
Before I delve into this topic, I think it’s important to point out that there should not be the labels of “sacred” and “secular.” I will use those terms for ease of communication to you in this post, but know that I believe all things are sacred, because all people were created in the image of God. That makes them sacred. When we put the label of “secular” on something, it automatically devalues it in the mind of a Christian. This is elitist and arrogant, but also disregarding God as the creator of the universe.
All art is viewed through a person’s own worldview grid, whether they understand what that is or not. And as a Christ-follower, that grid should not change because something has a distinctly Christian slant on it (i.e. God’s Not Dead). But it all too often does. We excuse poor writing, poor production value and poor acting because it is “Christian” and therefore, “sacred.” We judge all “secular” art by a moral standard first, and often ignore the good qualities. I have a significant problem with this. This is why the 2nd rule in my classroom is that we affirm the art first and critique it second.
Noah is a visually interesting piece of art. However, a bit of a narrative mess artistically. Some sloppy writing and even sloppier dialogue… I felt like I was watching pieces of several stories get “band aided” together. Some friends have expressed that the story of Noah as written in the 4 chapters in Genesis would have made just as compelling a story. I disagree. The story would have fallen flat by the standards we currently have for epic Hollywood movies. (But I imagine we would have disregarded that because it is “Christian,” right?)
To make the story of Noah compelling and remain faithful to scripture would have required an emphasis on Noah and his relationship with God (I had no problem with Noah calling him Creator in the movie, after all, God himself doesn’t give his people his name until Exodus) and an emphasis on the covenant. While I would have LOVED to see how Aronofsky would have handled that angle as a director, there is not a single non-believer in Hollywood who would ever take that risk. A covenantal relationships between God and humans is a foreign concept in our individualist culture today.
There are two main places where I give affirmations for Noah:
1.) The emphasis on our sin. Noah made it clear and the movie truly emphasized that what had gone wrong with the world was OUR fault. For once, God not portrayed as a homicidal manic and humans are not seen as innocent in the disaster.
2.) I felt like I got an inside look of how an obviously very creative non-believer would interpret about the things left unsaid in scripture about the story. While the majority of them were completely crazy (Methusaleh and the berries? The barrenness of Shem’s wife? Noah’s birthright with the snakeskin? Huh?) I enjoyed seeing Aronofsky’s interpretation of certain elements: namely the Watchers, Noah’s drunkenness. While they may be off-base, I still find them interesting. And I wholeheartedly believe that movies give us insight into what non-Christians are thinking and feeling.
Obviously, lots of liberties were taken with the story and it was not what we Christians love to call “faithful to the text.” But does that make the art of the film any less interesting? No. What is does is create concern that people who don’t know the story from the Bible taking the movie as truth. I don’t know that this is prevailing, but I do hope it drove people into the Word to find out what was actually recorded.
Where I challenge the movie:
1.) I wholeheartedly believe in caring for the environment and the church has, historically, viewed the good stewardship and care for this earth has a “liberal” issue, and to some that translates as “unbiblical.” (I will not open that can of worms right now.) Noah’s regard for the land was honorable and right, but so was Tubal-Cain’s monologue about us being given dominion. The movie chose one side as right and the other as wrong, when in fact they are both right. We CAN and SHOULD have dominion over the animals and the earth while simultaneously caring for it well.
2.) The complete disregard for the covenantal aspect of the story is the biggest missed opportunity in a film I’ve ever seen. I am far more bothered by this than other criticisms I have of the movie.
In general, I’ve been disappointed with how people have responded to the film, particularly those who are critical from a “it’s not faithful” standpoint. The story of Noah is fantastical and dark. For goodness sake, it’s about genocide! The fact that people use it to decorate the nurseries of their children disturbs me a little.
The story of Noah is one of many in scripture that reminds us of God’s wrath and his compassion. Which I think might be one of the most significant problems with the movie narratively: Noah is the hero of the story, not God.
That said, I had far more negative feelings about God’s Not Dead than I did of Noah. But that’s another post for another time.
unconditional love and unhealthy expectations [living life without expectations]
I went to visit a friend a back in March and told him about how I was writing on expectations, inspired by two friends of mine – two friends who live their lives without expectations, so they are never disappointed.
He was all for it. Not the writing. The living life without expectations.
So when I was working on my post from last week I texted him, asking him for a fuller explanation as to why he believes in living life this way. His response was that it was about caring for others… that not expecting anything from anyone was equivalent to unconditional love.
I would be curious to know if people who live their life without expectations would agree with him, but regardless, I am concerned at what he meant by love. Because I was pretty sure that what my friend meant wasn’t really love, but acceptance. And our culture is moving towards this meaning, too.
If we saw someone in our life taking a wrong path, it would be unconditional acceptance to let them go down that path. It would be unconditional love to confront them on their behavior and walk alongside them as they turn away from what harms them. The unconditional part comes in when it’s time to walk alongside them, in the good and bad.
God loves us unconditionally, but does not leave us where we are. He will not accept us living our lives in sin (though his love for us is not conditional on our behavior, of course.) I am all for unconditional love, but if someone isn’t treating me right, I don’t believe in unconditional acceptance of that behavior. God has given me enough respect for myself to make sure of that. If someone tells me there are going to do something, I expect them to follow through. It’s not unreasonable for me to do so. If there is someone in my life I see as a friend, but only taking and not giving, this isn’t a healthy relationship. I expect to be treated similar to how other friends treat me – with kindness, love and respect. I work to treat them the same way. This is not unreasonable. This is not unfair. This is love – working with one another to become the best version of ourselves.
I don’t know that too many people would disagree with what I’m saying about friendship. But when the rubber meets the road and it comes down to the details of living this out with the people in our lives, often the biggest obstacle in our expectations of others are the unhealthy ones.
That’s where this gets tricky.
The Stoics believe that we are to live free from passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and submit without complaint to unavoidable necessity. The emotionally detached person lives life at a distance, scorning others for not having control over their emotions, and living a life with no ups or downs, not feeling passionate about anything. Sounds like what many are looking for in order to avoid disappointment (i.e. hurt.)
If you swing the pendulum to the other side, you get co-dependency – clingy and unrealistic relationship dynamics. Where jealousy overtakes a single interaction, insecurity reigns in your heart, and no one can do anything that will satisfy you.
This comes down to a very basic human interaction: give and take.
Invitations will only be extended for so long before one’s rejection of them puts a stop to the invitations. Sharing part of yourself with another without reciprocity is being in a one-sided relationship. If you are always the one taking, that person will eventually run out of resources. If you are always the one giving, you will eventually exhaust your own capacity to give and tap out.
detachment, part 2 [living life without expectations]
As I practice my words here, and work out what I am feeling and experiencing in my life through these words, I’m recognizing the courage of emotionally connecting with myself is different from emotionally connecting with other people.
For those to whom I feel the most emotionally connected, it’s because I’ve sat next to them on a couch and listened to them bear their soul. It’s because I’ve laughed with them, done more than one face palm with them and I’ve gently shoved them in the arm when they say something bratty. It’s because I’ve sat across the table from them over coffee or a meal and looked them in the eye as I’ve shared my own struggles and pains. These moments, small and sure, fill in the cracks missing from those who do not enter in to my space.
It was already easy to become emotionally withdrawn from the world in order to protect myself. And technology has not only made it even easier, but socially acceptable. With a text message, I can edit if I want. Ignore it if I want. Others do the same to me. This is how it is now.
There is a measure of this that can be done in person, but you cannot ignore the person who is standing right next to you and asking you a tough question. You can’t un-see the look on their face, and the emotion in their eyes. But you can turn your phone off when someone texts you a tough question.
“We expect more from technology and less from each other…. And I believe it’s because technology appeals to us most where we are most vulnerable. And we are vulnerable. We’re lonely, but we’re afraid of intimacy. And so from social networks to sociable robots, we’re designing technologies that will give us the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship.”http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together
This is why we don’t answer some text messages, emails, and facebook messages but still might think we are “good” friends with that person. That is why we feel connected (because we can find out what is going on with them by checking twitter, instagram or facebook) but why we aren’t really friends with these people until we’ve had those real conversations. These real conversations are part of the demands of friendship, and as long as we have the illusion of being connected with a person, we will be lying to ourselves.
Yes. I said it. We are lying to ourselves.
We are afraid to be vulnerable with each other and social media and our phone have become our armor. Our lie.
“People get so used to being short-changed with real conversation and so used to getting by with less that they become almost willing to dispense with people all together.” – Sherry Turkle
I am calling for a new kind of relationship, a new kind of friendship.
One where it’s ok that it’s hard. Ok that it’s messy.
One where that feels good. And right. And more importantly, better.
It’s better because it’s real.
This is what it means to be emotionally connected. A refusal to detach from another and take the courageous steps towards someone who has the capacity to hurt you, but trusting that they will choose not to. And guess what? That is an expectation.
detachment, part 1 [living life without expectations]
I was standing in the kitchen across from her. She was sitting up on the counter and telling me about her latest group session class. The topic was detachment, and as I listening to her explain who it manifested itself in adult relationships, there was a small flutter in my stomach.
That sounds like me.
She didn’t disagree.
Well… she didn’t say anything, like any good counselor in training would do, even though she wasn’t my seminary counselor. She was my roommate.
I felt the burden settle ever so slightly on my shoulders and went about cooking dinner.
We’re all closed off emotionally, to a point. I understand and believe that. We use it as a defense mechanism after being hurt. We believe it will prevent future pain, which leads us to believe our life will be better overall. We hold people at arm’s length, not trusting them until we are sure… but even then, maybe not fully trusting. This is understandable, but is it wise?
These words are echoing in my mind, you cannot selectively numb emotion.You cannot attempt to numb the bad emotions without that affecting the good ones, too. Is it possible that if we hold people at arm’s length we will ever let our arms down fully? Will at least part of our arms (or maybe hands) always cover our heart?
And if so, are we not living in a relationship that has some measure of detachment? As I felt that burden settle on my shoulders that day, I knew this moment, this realization, would be with me forever. I was emotionally detached.
Disappointment and heartache are experienced when we live our lives with expectations, because we will be let down. So logic dictates that if we stop expecting, there will be no more disappointment and heartache. Sounds ideal. However, the more I think about expectations, the more I am convinced that they are more than just a noun. They are an emotion. And if they are an emotion, and you try to numb all the bad emotions, expectations will get numbed, too.
You’d be hard pressed to convince me this is a healthy way to live, to make me think this isn’t emotional detachment.
Being emotionally detached is a big risk, whether it seems so or not. It’s risking a full life, one without meaning. One without real love.
This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. – 1 John 4: 17-18
heartache [living life without expectations]
There are few things universal to the human experience. Heartache is one of them. We may feel it differently, process it differently, react differently… but make no mistake, we’ve all experienced heartache.
And the thing about heartache is that no one wants to experience it, and we will do whatever we can to avoid experiencing it again once we’ve been through it before. We will run, deny, avoid, and even tell ourselves and others around us lies, all in some attempt to amputate the process of feeling the real hurt.
Yet there is no topic written or sung about more.
It happens. It just does. Heartache is one of the many things we want to have control over in life. But we don’t. Still we try to exercise control over it by trying to numb the pain with alcohol, food, sex… anything that will make us feel good, even if just for a little while. And to deal with heartache in this way can lead us to very scary places, places that attempt to detach us from real life and real pain.
I am not proud of this, because I am no longer a teenager. But I cried myself to sleep Saturday night. I did. I felt like a fool and a martyr and drama queen and a baby the whole time. But my heart hurt, and although I hadn’t cried myself to sleep since… I don’t know when, in that particular moment that was how my body chose to express that heartache. As I seek to write with more courage, I also seek to feel with more courage. Like my last post in this series on expectations, about feeling the disappointment, I was trying to feel my heartache rather than avoid it.
The human heart is fragile not only physiologically, but also when it comes to sin and emotions. There is a reason God warns us in Proverbs to guard our hearts against sin, and there is a reason the middle of our chest physically feels hurt during heartache. It is the wellspring of life. Our heart is our very center. Because our heart is our very center, to avoid and ignore heartache would be to stunt our emotional growth.
Batter My Heart
Batter my heart, three-person’d God, for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o’erthrow me, and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp’d town to’another due,
Labor to’admit you, but oh, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv’d, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly’I love you, and would be lov’d fain,
But am betroth’d unto your enemy;
Divorce me,’untie or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you’enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
– John Donne
There is a promise to repair our heartache.
The Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit. Psalm 34:18
I wish it was easier. I wish heartache wasn’t part of life and part of expectations. But just like every part of the Fall of man, God has made a way to redeem it. Don’t stop that redemption with your own ways. Allow God to batter your heart and make you new.
Stephanie Nelson 