And, importantly, I haven't seen Noah yet. I honestly would really really like to. It intrigues me far deeper than any of the "contemporary religious movies" that were released around the same time (God's Not Dead, Son of God, and, upcoming, Heaven Is For Real). Maybe I'm a rebel. Maybe I'm a fool. Maybe I just think that I loved Les Mis, I loved Gladiator, and how could I not love a movie in which Russell Crowe portrays a Biblical hero?
But I felt very deeply distressed and disappointed as I looked out on my Facebook wall during the time of Noah's release. Left and right there were scathing and hateful reviews of the movie coming from people who either didn't see the movie or didn't give it a full chance. (To be clear: I want to respect people's rights to like or dislike a movie! For example: I watched Prometheus and I really really really hated it. That being said, there were some aspects to it [the animation, particularly] that were good.)
Why did the Church, largely, hate Noah? Most of those who responded negatively to it would say: "Because it was unbiblical!" or "It is blasphemous!" or something like that. Maybe "It supports environmentalism!" (Like Genesis 1 and 2 doesn't?) or "It supports evolution!" (... ... This one is becoming a dead horse.)
But I would say that the Church mostly hated Noah because of a false perspective of Art and a lack of integrity.
Genesis 5-9 is simultaneously a glorious amount of details on the Flood story and an amazing lack of specific detail. When we read a Biblical text, part of our hermeneutic necessarily needs to include the reality that there are details that we do not see. That's part of what a good inductive Bible study will reveal. For example: in the story of Jesus and the woman who anoints His feet with oil, we can't really understand the nature of the passage if we don't understand how Jesus is sitting at the table! In the Pharisee's house, there's a particular layout: the Pharisee at the head, Jesus at a prominent place as the visiting Rabbi. Everyone's sitting on the ground, of course, because their tables are placed on the ground. The woman washes Jesus' feet, and He looks at her while talking to the Pharisee. A 1st century Messianic Jew would have recognized immediately that Christ's decision to look upon the woman means (because of a physical reality!) that He is turning His face away from the Pharisee who invited him -- an incredibly meaningful act. This is something that we cannot understand without more information that is not given directly in the text.
So, for instance, when in the Noah movie apparently Russell Crowe has a manic-depressive moment when he considers killing his grandchildren. Don't get me wrong: I do not believe that Noah would have slain his grandchildren. But the purpose of this (again, I haven't seen the movie) in the movie is to convey the weight of Noah's consideration on sin -- he's realized that God is destroying the earth because of the sin of man, and that this sin is not only in the wicked people "out there" but "in here" -- in his family, in his children, and in his children's children. In that sense, it is a brilliant reflection on the doctrine of Total Depravity. And Noah's response upon discovering this is a logical one for someone under much theological stress.
And the depressive undertone isn't something too far-fetched -- we do read in the Bible that Noah goes from saving the world to getting himself drunk. Sounds like he may have "seen too much" and was trying to self-medicate. We could have a good theological discussion as to why Noah goes on a drinking binge, but it remains that we do not know directly why he did what he did in that passage -- and the creative license of saying "Oh! He's depressed because of the sin of man!" is a legitimate artistic perspective.
I say all of this to note one major point: As a whole, the Church does not understand Art. Think about it this way: Who gets better airplay on Christian radio, the artist who makes deeply nuanced and beautiful music with complicated lyrics (let's say... John Mark McMillan? Switchfoot? Aaron Strumpel?) or the worship leader who has written something that clearly says something theological? (Or semi-theological?)
This isn't about Noah, it's about how the Church responds to artistic media. Is a movie really "bad? I had a great conversation with some Christian friends last week, and they responded to a movie that I mentioned by saying "Yes, it's a great movie, but it's got some questionable things in it." I don't think that they were unjust in saying this (It is a great movie; it does have some questionable things in it.), but I do think that their statement was telling of how we as Christians deal with artistic media!
When I see Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam, I don't think that I would say "It's great art, but theologically inconsistent" or "It's great art, but too much nudity." Or when I listen to Beethoven, I don't say "It's great art, but he was crazy" or "It's great art, but he wasn't a Christian" or even! "It's great art, but he was so clearly depressed." To me, the modern Church's perspective on Art is one dominated by a perspective which fundamentally lacks integrity. We treat "classics" differently than we treat modern media; we treat certain things that are wicked different than other things that are wicked; we prefer unrealistic perspectives on our lives to stories that tell the truth as it is (for example: think of how beautifully-profound Gran Torino is; then think about what would happen if you removed all the cussing from it).
And we must be consistent even when films or art portrays our faith. If you dismiss Noah because of the liberties taken with the story, then you should never watch Prince of Egypt ever again (or sing along with that glorious "When You Believe" song at the end), you should avoid any Christian songs with off doctrine (quite notably, from Christmas music, "We Three Kings" or "Silent Night" -- okay, that last one is more of a humorous thought about whether or not the night Christ's birth could have actually been silent...), and most definitely we should take a stand whenever someone misquotes Scripture!!!*
(*Which, using an ancient Jewish rabbinical tradition, Jesus, Peter, and Paul all do. Multiple times.)
My point: How do we as Christians experience Art? I'm not saying that you should sift it through your theology -- most certainly do so! that's part of why I despised Prometheus, as explained in the link above -- but I am saying that you shouldn't judge the quality of a work's Art based on how it stands on your theological stances. We should take Art in the context that it is written. Noah was directed by an atheist who wanted to dramatically retell the Genesis story. I don't know yet whether I'll like it or I won't, but I recognize going in that the director does not believe that God truly is -- I'll judge the work according to its artistic quality, not its theological impact.
So, for instance, when in the Noah movie apparently Russell Crowe has a manic-depressive moment when he considers killing his grandchildren. Don't get me wrong: I do not believe that Noah would have slain his grandchildren. But the purpose of this (again, I haven't seen the movie) in the movie is to convey the weight of Noah's consideration on sin -- he's realized that God is destroying the earth because of the sin of man, and that this sin is not only in the wicked people "out there" but "in here" -- in his family, in his children, and in his children's children. In that sense, it is a brilliant reflection on the doctrine of Total Depravity. And Noah's response upon discovering this is a logical one for someone under much theological stress.
And the depressive undertone isn't something too far-fetched -- we do read in the Bible that Noah goes from saving the world to getting himself drunk. Sounds like he may have "seen too much" and was trying to self-medicate. We could have a good theological discussion as to why Noah goes on a drinking binge, but it remains that we do not know directly why he did what he did in that passage -- and the creative license of saying "Oh! He's depressed because of the sin of man!" is a legitimate artistic perspective.
I say all of this to note one major point: As a whole, the Church does not understand Art. Think about it this way: Who gets better airplay on Christian radio, the artist who makes deeply nuanced and beautiful music with complicated lyrics (let's say... John Mark McMillan? Switchfoot? Aaron Strumpel?) or the worship leader who has written something that clearly says something theological? (Or semi-theological?)
This isn't about Noah, it's about how the Church responds to artistic media. Is a movie really "bad? I had a great conversation with some Christian friends last week, and they responded to a movie that I mentioned by saying "Yes, it's a great movie, but it's got some questionable things in it." I don't think that they were unjust in saying this (It is a great movie; it does have some questionable things in it.), but I do think that their statement was telling of how we as Christians deal with artistic media!
When I see Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam, I don't think that I would say "It's great art, but theologically inconsistent" or "It's great art, but too much nudity." Or when I listen to Beethoven, I don't say "It's great art, but he was crazy" or "It's great art, but he wasn't a Christian" or even! "It's great art, but he was so clearly depressed." To me, the modern Church's perspective on Art is one dominated by a perspective which fundamentally lacks integrity. We treat "classics" differently than we treat modern media; we treat certain things that are wicked different than other things that are wicked; we prefer unrealistic perspectives on our lives to stories that tell the truth as it is (for example: think of how beautifully-profound Gran Torino is; then think about what would happen if you removed all the cussing from it).
And we must be consistent even when films or art portrays our faith. If you dismiss Noah because of the liberties taken with the story, then you should never watch Prince of Egypt ever again (or sing along with that glorious "When You Believe" song at the end), you should avoid any Christian songs with off doctrine (quite notably, from Christmas music, "We Three Kings" or "Silent Night" -- okay, that last one is more of a humorous thought about whether or not the night Christ's birth could have actually been silent...), and most definitely we should take a stand whenever someone misquotes Scripture!!!*
(*Which, using an ancient Jewish rabbinical tradition, Jesus, Peter, and Paul all do. Multiple times.)
My point: How do we as Christians experience Art? I'm not saying that you should sift it through your theology -- most certainly do so! that's part of why I despised Prometheus, as explained in the link above -- but I am saying that you shouldn't judge the quality of a work's Art based on how it stands on your theological stances. We should take Art in the context that it is written. Noah was directed by an atheist who wanted to dramatically retell the Genesis story. I don't know yet whether I'll like it or I won't, but I recognize going in that the director does not believe that God truly is -- I'll judge the work according to its artistic quality, not its theological impact.
No comments:
Post a Comment