A Reflection for Lent: Evil

We stand less than two weeks from Easter and anticipation of the resurrection is growing. However, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that Lent still continues until then. In my own reflections and readings during Lent I have been thinking recently about evil.

Evil is something that we often attach to others. Hitler was evil. Osama was evil. Big government is evil. Etc. This is so easy and natural for us to do. It is like breathing.

But as I journey through Lent, I am reminded that evil is not found primarily in others. Evil is also not far off. Evil lives in me. As N.T. Wright has said, "[T]he line between good and evil is never simply between 'us' and 'them.' The line between good and evil runs through each of us" (Evil and the Justice of God, 38.) Yes it is true that I have been forgiven and redeemed by Christ. Yes it is true that the Holy Spirit lives within me. But it is also true that until Christ returns, I am marred by sin and evil.

In watching the "Noah" movie this past weekend, one line from a conversation between Noah and his wife stuck in my mind. His wife was attempting to convince Noah that he and their family were basically good people. He responds by saying, "And yet, wouldn't we readily kill others to protect our children?" The fact is, when things are stripped away from us, when we feel our lives threatened, we too easily revert to those basic sinful tendencies--greed, selfishness, pride, lust, violence.

One of the things that saddens and frustrates me is the culture of anger and blame-setting I see on Facebook among other places. We as a culture are so quick to place and accuse others. Don't get me wrong, I think it is good to stand against injustice. But what I see people posting so often is inflammatory, accusatory, prideful, and (quite honestly) impulsive and ignorant. We seem to think that those who shout the loudest will be found in the right.

But what if we learned from this season and took a lesson from the cross? What if we recognized that the problem was not always in the others whom we quickly blame, but is often within ourselves? If we recognized that we don't really have much claim to the moral high ground, maybe our speech and actions would be marked with more humility.

The message of the cross is that sin and evil are real. And, it is not just a reality for "bad" people, it is a reality for ALL people. Jesus had to die for me as well as for "them." Furthermore, I am called to "take up the cross." This is not some nice metaphor for enduring hardships or sickness. It is a call to self-denial. On the cross I choose to crucify my selfish desires. I choose to sacrifice my rights for the sake of others. I choose to admit that I have sin in need of crucifying as well. May we take this message to heart during these final weeks of Lent so that when Easter comes, we can be all the more thankful that the Resurrection can overcome even an evil heart like mine.

Noah movie review blog (or novel...)

I finally saw “Noah” in theaters this weekend. I know there have been countless articles and blog posts about the movie already, but here are a few my thoughts. [Spoiler alert]

First, one of my hopes going into this movie was that seeing an interpretation of the story that relies heavily on extra-biblical sources might “break open” our own interpretation of the Noah story and help us see new aspects of it we may have missed before. Here are some ways in which I felt the movie succeeded.

1. I was reminded of the theme in Genesis 1-11 that cities are bad.

In the movie, the line of Cain develops industrialized cities and civilizations. This is portrayed negatively in the film as these cities end up destroying God’s good creation. Interestingly enough, in Gen. 1-11 we also find cities portrayed negatively. In the genealogies of Cain and Seth (Gen. 4-5) the only cities mentioned are in the fallen line of Cain. In fact, the first comment about Cain besides the fact that he gained a son is that he “built a city” (4:17). Likewise, in the post-flood world, the only cities mentioned are in connection with the fallen line of Ham. Eventually, the evil city-building finds its climax in the story of the Tower of Babel (“Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower” in 11:4). God deals with this sin by “scattering” the people.

This common theme should force us to look closer at the biblical text. Why does Gen. 1-11 depict cities as a challenge to God? The movie claims that such industrialization destroys the good earth. While this may be true today, it probably was not the main issue for the writer of Genesis. This is a import from our modern culture. Rather, in Genesis the problem is that God twice commands humans to “multiply” and “fill the earth”—once after Creation and once after the flood. Gathering in cities rather than scattering across the earth is direct disobedience of this command. In Genesis, cities are not inherently evil, but only evil in so far as they are built in opposition to the decrees of God.

2. Which brings us to the matter of ecology

Many Christians have critiqued the movie because the director depicts Noah as an ancient environmentalist. I agree insofar as saying that the strong emphasis on environmental issues has been imported into the text from our modern world. However, at least the writers and director are conscious of this imposition. Many Christian movies about the Bible have been made with little knowledge or awareness that their storytelling is also an interpretation influenced by their cultural biases.

That being said, perhaps we need an ecological reading of Genesis 1-11. American Christians have been far too dualistic in the past when it comes to thinking about the earth. Faulty thinking about the afterlife has taught many of us that we simply go to heaven when we die, so ecological endeavors are pointless. This world is going to burn after all, right? But if we remember that the Bible teaches resurrection—an affirmation of God’s good creation—then suddenly we must be more conscious of our earthly actions. God created the world and called it “good.” Why would he throw His masterpiece into the trash in the end?

Hopefully this movie refocuses our attention on Gen. 2:15 where God commands the man to “cultivate and protect” the garden. Creation does not exist simply for our own benefit. We are co-creators tasked with overseeing and being good stewards of God’s created world.

Maybe Noah will also help us expand our vision of salvation. God’s salvation through Jesus is not just about “saving souls.” It is about redeeming all of God’s good creation. Paul says in Romans that all creation “groans” and “waits for the sons of God to be revealed” (Rom 8:18-25). Paul says all the earth (animals and plants included) has been cursed because of our sin. Therefore, God’s ultimate plan for salvation includes redeeming and restoring that good creation. In that light, Russell Crowe’s Noah doesn’t sound all that unbiblical.

3. This is a dark story

Perhaps another reason many Christians got up in arms about the film was that this is not a “safe for the whole family” story. We sometimes have a bad knack of taming down the rough patches in the Bible. I remember watching an atheist rant on a YouTube video about a baby’s bible. He pointed out that key biblical stories, like Noah, David/Goliath, and the Crucifixion, completely omitted the ugly parts. For example, few children’s Bibles talk about (or illustrate) why Noah got to go on a fun wooden cruise with zoo animals.

Now, I’m not for destroying the innocence of children too quickly (another theme of the movie ironically), but I do think this same thinking affects us as adults. Have we as adult Christians truly pondered the dark places of the Bible? Or, are we still stuck in Kindergarten Sunday School mode? Do we think of rainbows and zoo animals when we hear Noah’s name, or do we think of the devastation of the world and the massive loss of human life that was the result of sin?

This new movie forces us to come face to face with the ugliness of sin and the tragedy it causes in the biblical story. One of the most haunting images of the film was a picture of the final surviving humans clinging to the last dry land of a mountain. Noah’s family hears the victims crying out, and then we see them, futilely clawing past each other like zombies to escape their fate. It reminded me that this too is in the story of Noah. While the text may not spell it out, have we seriously considered the line “All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind” (7:21)?

4. Christians critiqued Noah’s character for the wrong reason

In reading the critical reviews of the film, one thing that kept coming up over and over again was Noah’s “homicidal” character. How could any film-maker portray Noah as a person ready to kill his own granddaughter? More on this in the next point. However, by the end of the film, Noah shows mercy and chooses love. With that in mind, I think Christian critics completely missed another way they could have attacked the movie’s depiction of Noah (probably because many critics hadn’t even seen the movie when they started throwing accusations).

Toward the end of the film we get an interpretation of Noah’s drunken nakedness (which is in the Bible by the way). In the biblical text, Ham sees Noah’s nakedness, but does not cover his father. Instead, he tells his brothers who in turn cover Noah (just as in the movie). It is at this point that the film diverges from the text. In the movie Noah is grieved over Ham’s actions, but still offers a blessing for Ham in the final scene. This has the effect of us ending with a “good” Noah in the film. No longer is Noah a homicidal maniac, but a good patriarch. Meanwhile, in the Bible there is a total break between Ham and Noah. In the Bible, Noah curses Ham and his descendants. There is no ooey-gooey family love here. If the movie’s portrayal of the biblical Noah is to be critiqued, we should really critique it on its sugar-coating of the family dynamics at the end. But, like us Christians, we can easily turn family into an idol that comes before faithfulness.

5. IS humanity worth saving?

One final area many Christians were dissatisfied with was the cinematic Noah’s willingness to let humanity die out. Some Christian critics pointed to Gen. 1 to remind us that humans were made in God’s image. We are more valuable than animals, so of course the ark was to save humans, not creation. As above, perhaps we do think a little too highly of ourselves when it comes to salvation. Nonetheless, this question—Is humanity worth saving?—is a central theme of the movie. And, I think it is a good (and perhaps biblical) theme.

One of my friends pointed out to me that Noah’s “offering” to God and the rainbow scene are misplaced in the film. The order of Noah’s drunkenness and the offering/rainbow scene are reversed in the movie from its biblical order. In the Bible, the last major detail we hear about Noah is his wine debacle. This scene serves almost as a second Fall for the second creation. If you thought humans had escaped sin, you were wrong. And very quickly, sin once again escalates as we read genealogies of Israel’s enemies and hear the story of Babel. Even restarting humanity was not enough to get humans on the right track. By the time we arrive at Genesis 11, the reader should be asking, “Is there any hope? How can the cycle of sin and death ever be broken?”

This is essentially the question Noah wrestles with in the movie. He understands very correctly that evil runs through all of us. Too often we want to say with Noah’s wife that we are good people. The evil ones are “them.” But as Crowe’s Noah points out in the film, all of us are tainted by sin. None of us is good. (Isn’t this the starting point of our understanding of the Gospel.) Therefore, I can sympathize with Noah as he contemplates cutting off humanity’s future. If humans can’t escape sin and evil, maybe they should just die off to fulfill God’s command to “protect” creation (Gen. 2:15).

Yet, the film pushes us between alternate extremes. While Noah stresses human sinfulness (which is true), others including Tubal-Cain emphasize humanity as the valued “image of God” (which is also true). And both are in Genesis. Genesis 1 stresses that humans are the pinnacle of creation and are to “rule over” creation. But, then Genesis 2 places humans alongside the rest of the created order and also calls us to “protect” the garden of God. The beauty of the film is that is forces us to consider both sides and struggle to find the healthy middle ground between mercy and justice and between creation abuse and creation worship.

----------------------

I know this is a very long post and that I probably should have made at least two posts, but I need to type this while it is still fresh in my mind. So, if you’ve read this far, bear with me for two more quick points.

Another theme I loved concerned the silence of God. In one provocative scene, the villain Tubal-Cain cries out to the Creator asking him to speak. He desires God to end the silence, but there is no answer. A little later in the film, Noah pleads to God to help him decide what to do about his pregnant daughter-in-law. But instead of an answer, the sky clouds up more and Noah is met with silence.

This theme resonated with me because I have often had to deal with the silence of God. There have been times in my life when, like Tubal-Cain, I have shouted out, “Why don’t you answer?!” The film makes me ask about how to respond when it seems like God does not. This is a tough question worthy of another post, but I think a good question we Christians should take more seriously.

Second, at the end of the movie I couldn’t help but think how our current evangelical obsession with biblical literalism has caused us to miss some amazing opportunities. Once the credits began to roll, I heard one man in front of me (presumably a Christian) remark to his wife, “Well that was funny wasn’t it?” My first reaction was to wonder if we had even watched the same movie. Yes, a movie filled with violence, slavery, murder, contemplated infanticide, strained parent-child relations, and the death of thousands is “funny.” While I shed a few tears, all he could say at the end was that it was “funny.”

Of course, I knew what he was implying—the movie was not “biblically accurate.” It was “funny” to him because this Noah was nothing like the Noah he envisions when he reads Genesis. This is the attitude I think that drove almost all of the negative Christian reviews. My reply to that is simply, “Yes, it is ‘biblically inaccurate,’ but let’s get over it.”

Does a story have to be exactly what is contained in the Bible for it to carry truth? Even then, when it comes to the extra-biblical material, how do we really even know it couldn’t have been similar to the Bible’s contention? While the movie did contain some really off-the-wall moments (rock giants, anyone?) I have also heard some pretty off-the-wall ideas from conservative Christians when it comes to Genesis (such as a “firmament” of water surrounding the earth and peculiar views of the Nephilim that go way beyond anything the Bible says). The bottom line is there is much about the world of Gen. 1-11 we simply don’t know and never will.

With that being said, we need to view this movie as a work of art, not an attempt to recreate a historical account of how the Noah story actually might have happened. If we can get beyond the biblical “inaccuracies” (while not ignoring them) and really dig into the themes, we may find that this movie contains some powerful truths and questions for us to ponder as Bible-believing Christians.

Along that line, maybe we need to view the movie as a Midrash of the flood narrative. In ancient Judaism, rabbis would often take familiar Old Testament stories and add new twists or details in order to deliver a new theological point. (For an interesting look at how this movie employs some actual Jewish Midrash, check out this article.) What do these new (and yes, extra-biblical) details in the movie reveal about us as people and about our culture? What truths and questions do the themes push us toward? Does the movie allow us to rediscover truths in Genesis that we have overlooked for too long?

In the end, I don’t believe this movie is an attack on Christians or even on the Bible. There will certainly biblically illiterate people who will think this is all in the Bible, and we should gently point them to the actual story. But for the rest of us, maybe we can step back and learn something from a movie that was very intentionally and artfully constructed. Or, if you can’t do that, at least go see it to make fun of some rock giants.

*If you aren’t sick of reading yet, you may also check out this article containing an interview with one of the writers.

"Son of God" movie

Many of us have probably seen previews for or heard news about the upcoming film "Son of God," due to release Feb. 28. As the title clearly implies, it is a movie chronicling the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The movie employs scenes from "The Bible" miniseries that aired last year and will include deleted and additional footage. If you haven't heard anything about the film, check out one of the trailers below:

 

Thinking about this release reminded me of a project I did my senior year of college. In this project I explored the interplay between the biblical Gospels, "Jesus films," and culture. My underlying thesis was that any film, TV show, etc. depicting Jesus better reflects the producing culture than it does the actual, historical Jesus. For the project I studied the films The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) and Jesus (TV movie, 2000). 

What I concluded by the end was that each film clearly reflects the cultural times, trends, and tendencies of its era. For example, the Jesus of Greatest Story is a Jesus for the 1960's. This Jesus is stoic and removed from earthly life (a "heavenly" being if you will); the type of Jesus "needed" to combat the revolutionary movements of the 60's. This film's Jesus is also depicted as a hero in the style of an American Western, a popular film genre of the era. Meanwhile, Jesus offers a more "modern" Jesus fitting with the culture of the early 2000's. This new and improved Jesus is an "earthy" Jesus trying to discover his identity. He even briefly considers a romantic relationship. If it weren't for the ancient garb, 2000's Jesus could easily be mistaken for any young millennial searching for their identity and meaning in a complex world.

 

Now that we face a new Jesus film, I am fascinated by what kind of Jesus will be depicted and how he will reflect our culture in 2014. When the film comes out I hope to analyze it for myself, but first I'd like to explain how I went about studying each Jesus film so you can join me in better understanding our cultural Jesuses from the Jesus presented in our Scriptures.

To study each film, I applied a method of biblical interpretation called "redaction criticism." This method compares biblical texts with their source materials and notes how the author "redacts," or changes, the original text. Changes might include additions, deletions, or word and stylistic alterations. For example, it is commonly assumed that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke both used material from Mark as well as from other sources in compiling their gospels. We can compare the passages in Matthew or Luke that clearly borrow from Mark and observe how Matthew/Luke make changes. From there we develop theories on possible theological or artistic motivations for making those changes.

For instance, compare Matt. 16:13-23 and Mark 8:27-33. Both stories are almost identical (even word for word) with the exception of a few places where Matthew changes the story. Two changes stand out. First, whereas Mark 8:33 says that Jesus "rebuked" Peter (same word for rebuking demons), Matthew 16:23 changes "rebuke" to the weaker verb "said." It's just a statement, not a rebuke of a demon. Second, Matthew adds an entire section of praise for Peter from Jesus in 16:17-19. In Mark's version, Peter says "You are the Messiah" and immediately gets "rebuked" (the first of 2 times). In Matthew, Peter receives praise from Jesus and only gets "told" off later when he tries to convince Jesus not to die.

Biblical scholars note these changes (along with many similar changes in Matthew's Gospel) and conclude that Matthew tends to portray the disciples as constantly improving in their faith. Meanwhile, Mark holds a negative view of the disciples, observing their faith shrinking and increasing thickness with each chapter. The reason for this is because Matthew and Mark are emphasizing different aspects of discipleship to best convey different messages for different audiences.

I suggest we can treat Jesus films as a "cultural text" and apply the same method. In the case of such films, we know the primary source material--the biblical Gospels. However, no film uses the Gospels as its only source. Jesus films also borrow from pop culture, Christian (and cultural) tradition, and the director's imagination/experience. Even films with dialogue taken only from the Gospels (such as The Gospel of John) still use other sources in what they visually depict on screen.

So, as we watch any Jesus film, we need to note what is borrowed from the biblical Gospels, what is added to the Gospel narratives, and what is left out. These places in the dialogue and plot that differ from the biblical narratives are crucial for understanding the cultural Jesus being presented in the movie. When we note these changes, we need to ask, "Why present Jesus in that manner? Why make that change?" Even noting camera angles and music can tell us about what kind of Jesus we are seeing on screen.

I'll explain more of how this can work in my next post and will maybe even throw out of few ideas based on the trailer. Until then, let me know what you think about approaching Jesus films in this way.

Make me a Rhoda

Yes, it's been a long time since I've written a real post (although I'm sure not many people noticed with such a long hiatus), but maybe I'll be able to make this a better habit.

As I was preparing for my Wednesday night youth lesson I suddenly became really convicted by the story I was studying [SPOILER ALERT: If you're one of my students you'll hear this again tomorrow night.] I guess even us pastors need our toes stepped on from time to time (everyday would probably be best).

Our youth group is currently studying through the book of Acts, and this week we are on Acts 12. This is the chapter where Peter is miraculously released from prison by an angel, only to be left stranded outside a house by an overexcited servant girl named Rhoda.

Luke tells us the Christians gathered in the house had been "praying." Almost certainly one of their top prayer concerns was Peter, one of the great leaders of the church who had just been arrested. So, it's strange that no one believes Rhoda when she tells them Peter is standing outside. They had been praying for God to help Peter. It seems odd to me...

But not that odd. As I think about it, that is what my prayer life looks like. I wonder if that house full of Jesus followers really believed that God would hear their prayers and take action. Perhaps they were just like me. All too often my prayers are rushed and shallow. Too many times I pray with that nasty little voice in my head whispering that my prayers are pointless. I throw empty words into the empty void between me and a far-off God and know that he won't do anything.

But then there is Rhoda, a simple servant girl. Whether she was praying herself or simply listening to the prayers of the house, she had her eyes (and ears) open to readily see what God was doing in response to those prayers. She didn't know what was coming, but she was ready. She recognized God's handiwork immediately.

Rhoda reminds me of the truth I easily forget--God is not distant, nor is He idle. When I pray, or sing, or, or work, I do so in the very presence of God. And as I speak, He hears me. And not only does He respond and take action, but He is already in action, moving through the halls of my house and the streets of my city. He may not answer in the way I want, but I must keep my eyes wide open and my ears ready because He will answer, and it will probably be with something better than I could have imagined. The question I must face is whether I will pray and live in anticipation that God will (and is) acting, or if I will blindly walk through life ignorant of the creating, sustaining Love that surrounds me. Make me a Rhoda.

How to Hold a Hand

Hey everyone,

Sorry it's been a long time since I've posted on my blog. I've been really busy the past two years with finishing grad school. Hopefully I will get some new posts up soon now that I am done with school.

I'm writing right now to let you know that I recently published one of my short stories on Amazon. You can get it for Kindle here or at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GM5MECY . The story is called "How to Hold a Hand." It is about two families--one in America and one in war-torn Palestine. For a limited time (Nov. 13-15, 2013) you can get it for free. Hope you enjoy it!

What to Do When the World is Ending

Well, it's May 21, but I haven't heard any reports of earthquakes in Asia yet. So, I figured doing a blog post wouldn't be a waste of my final hours. However, all this talk about the end of the world does spark a good question: If you knew the world was going to end tomorrow how would you spend that time?

An article in TIME this week invited readers to answer that question. Here are some of the answers they provided:


-I would go to a really fancy museum and touch everything
-I'd buy the most expensive bottle of scotch I could get my hands on (like $1,000) and drink it. Oh, and I'd buy a cigar to go with it
-Feel the emotions of exposing myself on public transportation
-Punch my boss
-Finally tell all those kids with the saggy pants to pull their pants up
-Bust dogs out of the shelter and gorillas out of the zoo
-Eat pies and cheese and stuff

-I'd have my girlfriend come over and just lay in bed with me wearing our finest formalwear like the elderly couple in Titanic
-Buy expensive crystal wine glasses and smash them against a wall
-I'd probably just start asking random really hot girls if they want to sleep with me
-Well, I'd definitely stop folding laundry
-Eat nothing but $2 Taco Bell meals
-Watch Party of Five on Netflix
-Challenge Michael Jordan to a one on one

From: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2072767,00.html#ixzz1N03bvDnH

It was interesting to me that most of the answers provided involved either splurging on one's self or carrying out those secret mischievous (or sinful) acts we've always wanted to do. I found this a fascinating contrast to the answer that Martin Luther provided so long ago. When contemplating what he would do if he knew the world was going to end he said that he would plant a tree. What a difference.

Perhaps the difference lies in our belief in the end. If we believe that the end of the world is  the ultimate end or if we believe that there is only heaven to look forward to, then such earthly desires for those final hours make sense. After all, you won't have another chance.

However, if we believe in the Christian hope of resurrection then what we do on this earth does matter. Our work is not in vain. When Christ does come it won't be as the destroyer of worlds but as the one who comes to redeem, resurrect, and recreate what has been lost.