environment | Andrew K. Fox

Unreal: The Pursuit of Happiness

Is God real? Are there many gods? Which one do I choose? How do I make an intelligent choice? Is the ability to choose mine, or am I the chosen? One answer to these questions is offered from the deeply troubled actor, agnostic, and self-appointed religious philosopher Woody Allen. “Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends” (Gardner 2009, 196). A more serious answer is offered by the biblical scholar Christopher Wright (2006). The problem is “not the denial of other gods but an understanding of the uniqueness of [God] that puts Him in a class of his own, a wholly different class from any other heavenly or supernatural beings, even if these are called gods asking whether other gods, in addition to the God of the Bible, are actually real” (Wright 2006, 81). I will return to Wright’s thoughts later, and fortunately, not Woody Allen’s.

The Christian Bible is full of psalmists, prophets, poets, and kings (among others) citing other gods, albeit negatively. In addition, the history of human beings is a graveyard of Babylonian, Mesopotamian, Persian, Egyptian, Syrian and other ancient gods. On one hand, if other gods are simply a figment of human imagination, a plethora of authors in the Christian Bible must have been smoking some Messianic marijuana, while historians smoked on the monarch brand of the same kind. On the other hand, the same authors may have been on to something quite profound.

There are several observations I would like to make. First, throughout the Christian Bible other gods are never mentioned as a separate entity disconnected from the Christian God. It appears that both are mentioned frequently as opposites, but never as equals. Second, the Christian God appears to frequently challenge other gods to a public contest. It won’t hurt the reader (or myself as the writer) to pause at this second observation and examine the Christian God before returning to other observations and the question of other gods.

Because the Christian God is mentioned with other gods, and that He challenges other gods to public contests, He is unique among all the gods. What specifically makes Him unique among many gods is His name. The popular singer, Joan Osborne, expressed her thoughts about the uniqueness of God in a song written by Eric Bazilian: “What if God was one of us? What if God had a name? What would it be, and would we call it to his face?” (Osbourne 1995). Apparently God does have a name according to the Christian Bible. It is a deeply personal name.

It could be said that the Christian Bible is written ad lib where terms for God fill in blank spaces where His name would be written. For instance, God’s name was, and still is, revered by rabbis to the point of substituting His name for Adoni (Lord). Substituting His name helps the reader associate the fullest comprehension of who the Christian God was, and is, without limiting an understanding of Him. In other words, substituting God’s name was a sacred literary act as a catch-all for everything His name implied.

It could be said that the spiritual mantra of today is to pick a god, any god at all, call him or her this or call him that, it does not matter who he or she is as long as sincerity is applied to belief within a social context of inclusion. I accept your god as you accept mine. Such a mantra comes into conflict with the First Commandment of the Christian Bible, “You shall have no other gods before me.” (Ex. 20:2). However, this reinforces the question of the existence of other gods. If other gods are a figment of human imagination, why the First Commandment? I must return to the name of God.

The First Commandment leaves no frustrating pursuit of an elusive and unknowable name that cannot be grasped, albeit ad lib as a catch-all term. The Christian God is not revealed to human beings like the biographical movie of Frank Abagnale would suggest, “Catch Me if You Can” (Spielberg 2002). Apparently, God is not attempting to hide from humanity and I would question the human capacity to catch God. He is no vague higher power but a deeply personal being who became incarnate. Osborne was correct to ask, “What if God was one of us?” (1995). He was.

Even though He was one of us no one knows the original pronunciation of God’s name, as the Hebrew alphabet did not contain vowels. Although people listened to the name of God through their elders, the same name was rarely written down. When it was, His name could only be recognized (using English consonants) as YHWH. Even so, if God has revealed Himself to human beings as one of us, He can also be known personally.

Over many generations the sound of God’s name faded. It was not until Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) added alternative letters belonging to Adoni (Lord) that became Jehovah. Maimonides was the foremost intellect in Judaism and philosopher-physician to the court of Sultan Saladin (1138-1193). Jehovah is not actually the name of God, but it helped preserve the identity of who He was, and is. In the ancient orient, names were not just for identity but also to preserve family history, events and character traits. If names changed it was because the person changed. For instance, the Old Testament patriarch Jacob was re-named Israel. However, both names were still referred to, although they meant different things, they were the same person. The same can be applied to YHWH, Jehovah and Adoni (Lord).

Yahweh, as we write it in English, is the most comprehensive name related in the Semitic idiom: ‘I will all that is necessary as the occasion arises.’ For instance, within Yahweh are the names Almighty, Most High, Rock, Strong One, God of Hosts, Peace, Healer, Righteousness, and Provider to name a few. Once again, a singular term becomes a catch-all that God’s name implies. Therefore, God’s identity is complete in His name with every facet, character, thought, will and behavior. A comprehensive introduction to God (Yahweh, Jehovah, and Lord) reveals more than you asked for and leaves very little that is kept hidden.

The First Commandment is a primer to the identity of God. Once understood, His name is precise, accurate, absolute, comprehensive, exhaustive, total and complete, but it is more than that. It is a about spiritual fidelity.

Harold Netland states that it was not too long ago when a man wanted to find God he went to a church or a synagogue, but not anymore (2001). Two reliable sources reinforce his claim. First, the popular book Alien Gods on American Turf describes 1500 religious groups that exist in America with over 600 having non-Christian roots (Muck 1990). Undoubtedly, this figure is much higher today. Second, Gallop reports that most Americans claim affiliation with Christianity although it does not translate into Christian faith in practice (Newport 2004). Finding God could be restated as finding a god among many gods. If most Americans associate with the Christianity but not the Christian God in practice, practical atheism, or at best agnosticism, is a present reality. I must return to the question of other gods. After all, it appears that religious pluralism is more common in America than a Sunday morning would have us believe.

Referring to the Christian Bible, Wright assumes “that other gods do exist, but none of them has any claim on Israel’s worship or allegiance” (2006, 81). Wright makes this exclusive claim based on biblical text. I have cited 12 of them. Each one is a claim about God that other gods have never made.

He is the Divine King: “But the Lord is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King” (Jer. 10:10).

He is Deeply Personal: “O Lord, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord” (Ps. 139:1-4).

He can be known: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God” (Jn. 17:3).

He needs nothing to exist: “I am who I am” (Ex. 3:14).

He is unchanging: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” (Jam. 1:17).

He embodies truth: “We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true” (Jn. 5:20).

He is love: “God is love” (Jn. 4:8).

He is holy: “God disciplines us for our good that we may share in his holiness” (Heb. 12:10).

He is merciful: “But in your great mercy you did not put an end to them or abandon them, for you are a gracious and merciful God” (Neh. 9:31); He is faithful, “God, who has called you into fellowship with his son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful” (1 Cor. 1:9).

He is just: “The arrogant cannot stand in your presence” (Ps. 5:5).

He is without beginning or end: “Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called upon the name of the Lord, the Eternal God” (Gen. 21:33).

Wright is claiming exclusiveness for the Christian God without denying the existence of other gods. “Are the gods something or nothing? If asked in relation to YHWH, the answer has to be nothing…in relation to those who worship other gods…then the answer can certainly be something” (Wright 2006, 139). Is the existence of other gods a figment of the human imagination or something sinister? Wright believes they can be either or both (2006, 161). If he is correct, that other gods can be both, significant social truth is revealed. Nevertheless, what is revealed has dangerous theological implications.

The danger is not in the eradication of the Christian God, as Richard Dawkins believes (2008). Neither is it God’s inclusion in a plethora of other gods, real or imagined as Harold Netland points out (2001). I am suggesting it is a changed approach to God. He is still there and regularly prayed to by people who believe He is there. Congregational songs are still sung about Him. Christmas and Easter celebrations still hold to their theological underpinnings. The changed approach comes from a question of existence. Why does He exist? A dangerous social truth is that God exists for us. In other words, He is exclusively used for our human benefit in the form of Western prosperity, advancement, success, health, and achievement. He is no longer worshipped. He is an object among other gods to be used, not the object of our exclusive worship.

If this is true, then just as true is how we manufacture other gods. On what basis do we construct other gods? If God exclusively exists for me, I can construct Him out of anything. I am not referring to wood, clay, glass and so on. I am referring to fear, love, trust, hate, and so on. It allows me to fear Muslims, only love those who love me back, trust in things that relieve me of fear, hate anyone that is not heterosexual or a believer in democracy and so on. How awful! If the manufacture of God among many gods is made from these raw human materials, God becomes less than human. Wright notes, “If you worship that which is not God, you reduce the image of God in yourself. If you worship that which is not even human, you reduce your humanity still further” (Wright 2006, 173). God becomes unreal. Perusing an unreal god is a downward spiral that does not redeem or offer any hope to the human condition.

I would like to make a final observation. The Christian God claims exclusiveness among other gods. Although the message of Christianity is inclusive of all human beings, it is exclusive on the object of worship. Christian worship is monotheistic. Context for this claim is found as a preamble to the First Commandment, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Ex. 20:1). The Christian God singles Himself out as the One who redeems and offers hope. This is a significant truth that may have become clouded in our present day. In the inclusion of all human beings is the exclusive claim that God is above all other gods. Anything other claim is unreal.

[Graphics by Bethany Ricks bethany233@gmail.com]

Dawkins, Richard. 2008. The God Delusion. 1st Mariner Books ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Gardner, Martin. 2009. When You Were a Tadpole and I Was a Fish: And Other Speculations about This and That. 1st ed. New York: Hill and Wang.

Muck, Terry C. 1990. Alien Gods on American Turf. Christianity Today Series. Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books.

Netland, Harold A. 2001. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Newport, Frank. 2004. “Gallop.” A Ook At Americans and Religion Today. http://www.gallup.com/poll/11089/Look-Americans-Religion-Today.aspx.

Osbourne, Joan. 1995. One Of US. Relish Album.

Speilberg, Steven. 2002. Catch Me If Your Can. Amblin Entertainment.

Wright, Christopher J. H. 2006. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic.

Aronofsky and Noah: Stop Whining!

Introduction

On Tuesday April 1st I took my New Testament Literature class to see the movie Noah in Austin Texas. Two aspects of this field trip were coincidental but play a key role in what follows in this article. First, the invitation to students was not an April Fool’s Day prank, but there is a growing conversation among fundamental Christianity that Darren Aronofsky’s re-telling of the biblical story was simply foolish. Second, the city of Austin is an unavoidable postmodern context for the audience and its evolving worldview deconstructing every modernist view. Both aspects underscore the content of this article: is Arnonfsky’s re-telling of the story of Noah simply foolish, and what role does a postmodern worldview play in producing the movie fourteen years into a new millennium?

Outline

To clarify this dual underscoring theme the following outline is presented: (1) the originator of the story; (2) the purpose of the story; (3) the incomplete story; (4) the current vehicle of the story; and (5) the outcome of re-telling the story. It would be too ambiguous to write an article that represents the masses and their cultural, religious, or biblical worldviews. I would prefer to leave that ambiguity to the fundamentalist and the rhetoric of those who have not left their apartment, duplex, or house for long periods – apart from a trip to the cinema to see Noah. To that end, this article is limited to the city of Austin and other communities with similar worldviews.

The Originator of the Story of Noah

Who wrote the original story of Noah, what evidence supports this from the Bible and other sources, and why does this matters for postmodernism? First, the Bible itself supports the authorship of Moses in three sections: (1) from the Pentateuch (Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24); (2) from other Old Testament books (Joshua 1:8; 8:31–32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13; Malachi 4:4); and, (3) from the New Testament (Matthew 19:8; John 5:45–47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5; Mark 12:26). Second, there are obvious influences from Mesopotamian culture in the Pentateuch. For instance, the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Atrahasis are two examples of Mesopotamian accounts of creation. The Epic of Gilgamesh is another Mesopotamian account of a global flood. Three conclusions about the authorship and original audience of the story of Noah can be presented: (1) that it was not difficult for Moses to believe the story himself because it pre-existed in other cultures; (2) that it would not be difficult for the audience to believe it for the same reasons; and, (3) oral tradition was prolific as the ancient media and social networks of their day.

Long-age geology, big bang cosmology, secular archaeology, liberal theology, and philosophical differences have played a significant role in undermining the authorship of the story of Noah and in a general sense the entire Pentateuch. On one hand, these disciplines fully emerged in the development of a modernist worldview. In other words, the authorship of Moses has only come into intensified questioning for the past 250 years. Ironically, this could be paralleled with the history of the United States of America.

This matters to a postmodern worldview. On the other hand, postmodernism is a dominant worldview in the city of Austin Texas, therefore, it rejects these disciplines and does not struggle with the Bible or any other religious text like the Quran, Pāli Canon, Mabinogion, Smriti, Sruti, Urantia Book, or the Book of Shadows. I am not suggesting belief but an acceptance of religious pluralism. What remains in dispute with Noah is not the theme of a global flood but how it is re-told by Arnonfsky. To that end, the purpose of the story of Noah needs

The Purpose of the Story of Noah

If Moses is the accepted author of the story of Noah by a postmodern worldview and a global flood is not in question in the same view, what purpose does it serve for the God of the Bible and His creation? Turning again to Mesopotamian culture, parallels include a divine being that was not pleased with a created world resulting in an apparent do-over. If this is the case, searching for the purpose of the story of Noah cannot be exclusively reduced to these reasons. If that as the case, the monotheistic God of the Bible would be no different from the pluralism of other gods.

American theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), wrote and preached a sermon in Enfield, Connecticut on July 8th 1741 called Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God. In short, Edwards portrays God differently to the evangelical approach of contextualizing Him in a democratic and capitalist culture of advance and prosperity. Noah captures Edwards’ quintessential portrayal of God. A singular line in the sermon summarizes this portrait and connects it to Noah. “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God” (Edwards 1741). Arnonfsky’s couches the character of Noah in a manner that would not attract the masses from the evangelical pulpit today. He fears God. He wrestles with his own humanity. He is humble. He does not publish himself as successful – if anything – a failure. He gets angry.

The purpose of the story of Noah is what Chris Wright call missio Dei (mission of God) as a metanarrative or continued story of God revealing Himself throughout the history of creation. In this case, Noah reveals that sinners are in the hands of an angry God. It is part of a redemptive story seen in the Bible through the words of Jesus. “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37). In eschatological terms, Noah also reveals the corrupt and self-destruct nature of man is a precursor to the Second Advent. In this way, the story of Noah serves as a continued example of missio Dei (mission of God). However, the story of Noah appears to be incomplete in the Bible (Genesis 6:9-7:1-29).

The Incomplete Story of Noah

There are two distinct approached to the story of Noah. I am omitting the authoritative Word of God as a given for Christians, although I will challenge this later. First, in terms of literature, like most of the narrative sections in the Bible, it does not read as good literature because there are many gaps and unqualified statements. I must underscore this approach in the literature of the Bible. For instance, the sons of God are introduced distinct from human beings. These sons are attracted to the daughters of men and conceive children with them (Genesis 6:1-3). The Nephilim are also introduced to the prequel of the story of Noah (Genesis 6:4-8). I think this is what Arnonfsky was attempting with the Giant Watchers who came from God but displeased Him. In this way, Arnonfsky was filling in the gaps where the literature of the Bible gives not prescriptive or descriptive text. This process is repeated through Noah where the Christian may respond, “Hey! That’s not in the Bible.” But in terms of literature this is the point, it may not be in the Bible but the Christian has already filled in the gaps with their own tradition. What comes into conflict is Arnonfsky’s ideas and the Christians ideas. This is also seen in the rapid growth of vegetation, Methuselah’s healing powers, the sale of children in exchange for meat and so on.

Second, in terms of good storytelling it makes for a provoking screenplay in Noah. I must underscore the approach as storytelling different from literature, albeit through the written word. George McDonald (1824-1905) was a master storyteller who became an inspiration for C.S. Lewis allowing for the reader to interpret both form and meaning. Without attempting to put Moses in the same category as McDonald or Lewis, he allowed the reader to do the same. Moses does not tell us any more about the Nephilim as McDonald does not tell us any more about Roverandom, or Lewis telling us much about Santa Claus in Narnia. The reader assumes what they assume where the gaps appear.

An examples of this in Noah is both sublime and ridiculous, but not in a foolish. To communicate the re-telling of this story the entire cast spoke in a sophisticated English language. This is ridiculous in terms of what we know about human history and linguistics. But the Bible does the same thing. Did God speak English to Moses? Obviously not, so at some point the mechanisms of translation were developed to write an oral tradition down in a first language evolving to the screenplay writers. Some things are lost while others are included. I must underscore again that I am not approaching this as the authoritative Word of God but as storytelling.

It is sublime because I can read it in the Bible and see it dramatized in a movie in my postmodern culture. Furthermore, it is environmentally friendly caring for all creation in an Eden-like manner. It is ridiculous in terms of language and the cultural liberties taken to communicate the story. “In late February the studio released a joint statement with the National Religious Broadcasters saying the movie was not 100% biblically accurate but was true to the spirit of the scriptural story” (Time, March 2014). This is what storytelling does – it retains the spirit of the story. Rob Moore, Vice President of Paramount said that a literal re-telling of the story of Noah would not make a great movie – and I agree. There are too many gaps. This needs further thought in the vehicles of the story of Noah.

The Current Vehicle of the Story of Noah

Time Magazine published an article called One Man’s Quest to Christianize Hollywood (Time, March 2014). Unlike the political forum, Christianity is an untapped audience for Hollywood. “The studio wanted Noah to be popular with the general public, but more important, it needed to win over the tens of millions of U.S. Christians who are increasingly sought after in Hollywood” (Time March 2014). There were at least half a dozen versions of Noah before the final cut, which was not Arnonfsky’s cut. In that process, “the studio discovered something surprising: people didn’t really know the story. And it wasn’t merely nonbelievers who had misconceptions about the tale of a man who built an ark to survive a great flood. It was Christians too” (Time March 2014). This is a shot across the bow of Christianity and highlights that that are many guardians in Christianity who are academic scholars but not many fathers who can academically teach with good pedagogy (1 Corinthians 4:15).

After Mel Gibson’s Passion of Christ (2004) “Hollywood discovered that there are 90 million Americans who take their faith very seriously” (Time, March 2004). Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and James Dobson supported Gibson’s screenplay resulting in the highest R-rated money earner in the history of R-rated movies (Box office Mojo, 2014). Supporters of Noah include Geof Morin, executive vice president of the American Bible Society, and Brian Houston, senior pastor of Hillsong Church. The reason behind this backing, according to Time, is that people will see themselves in Noah – and I agree – and it is very postmodern to identify with the struggles of humanity.

It is not a story with three steps, four keys, and five principles. It is a redemptive and savific narrative that has filled in the gaps. Paramount have placed a disclaimer on the website for Noah, its marketing materials, and movie trailer, “While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis” (Paramount 2014). I’m sure that Hollywood respond to the Box Office and not criticism. With all the balances and checks in place for a provoking screenplay, it did not help when Arnonfsky stated, “it’s the least biblical-biblical film ever made and I don’t give a f### about test scores. I’m outside the test scores” (Time, March 2014). Truly un-Noah-like, and according to the story, he would have drowned.

The Outcome of the Re-Telling of the Story of Noah

As of April 2nd Noah has earned $53,040,776 and only cost $125 million in production. Worldwide it stands at $104,140,776 (Box Office Mojo). Paramount are pleased. But a box office figure is not the only outcome. What cannot be documented are the conversations in rural, urban, and suburban communities both face-to-face and through social networks. If Paramount is not concerned with criticism, is the God of the Bible too concerned about the sublime and ridiculous in Noah?

Do we really expect Hollywood to preach, teach, expound, or develop a theological treatise any more than we expect Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty to contribute to an informed and intelligent social commentary, or for George Clooney to lecture on politics? I expect Hollywood to keep to their own word. “While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis” (Paramount 2014). For those who have not left their apartment for some time – consider arguing the narrow minded disclaimer of Paramount that the story of a global flood is found in the book of Genesis. It is also found in Mesopotamian culture. It would be in keeping with fundamentalist ranting.

Two questions remain. First, is mankind really the parasite of creation as portrayed in Noah? On one hand, the movie can be viewed casting mankind in the same light as every living thing in creation. On the other hand, it can be viewed as a redemptive story where mankind was worth saving. The latter would agree with missio Dei (mission of God) finding its realization in a man called Jesus, retold by United Artists in The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) through the actor Peter O’Toole. If United Artists can retell the story of Jesus through a womanizing hell-raising and brilliant actor – I’m sure Noah will be useful to God.

Second, would you follow a man like Noah who does not pretend about his faith or have a game-face for others? Allowing for a literary license (and a little sarcasm), what would the real Noah say to fundamentalist Christianity having a theological hissy-fit as though Hollywood was the Church? Furthermore, would the same fundamentalists be on the ark or in the drink? If they were on the ark I’m sure they would not be as broken as the character of Noah which is a profound characteristic of the Christian. If they were in the drink, I’m sure they would join preacher who continued to preach even though he was in hell.

Noah is a great fit for postmodern Austin Texas with more ensuing conversations about God than foolish criticism.