God | Andrew K. Fox

I Now Pronounce You as Husband and Wife

I am an Englishman living in Texas, or more specifically Austin Texas. On any given Friday, Saturday, or Sunday I am typically dressed in one of my finest tailored suits officiating a wedding ceremony; about 40-50 a year to be a little more precise. Family and friends – and at least several wedding crashers – gather to witness a bride and groom make their vows to each other. No matter what type of vows are made, all wedding ceremonies conclude with the proclamation, “I now pronounce you as husband and wife!”

How regal it is to officiate a wedding ceremony that concludes with this proclamation. The “I” is emphasized to the bride, groom, family and friends – and even the wedding crashers – that power to make this proclamation rests with me. Like a monarch holding out his imperial insignia towards the bride and groom, my imaginary scepter brings the whole occasion to a glorious conclusion. With quell and ink, my English monogram marks the legal parchment acknowledging that transition has mysteriously taken place. At some point within the wedding ceremony, the bride became wife, and the groom became husband. The bride and groom have new identities. More importantly, “I” proclaimed it!

Hang on! Regal? Monarch? Imperial? Scepter? These terms are decidedly non-American, and especially non-Texan! However, the glorious conclusion, “I now pronounce you as husband and wife”, is typically followed by spontaneous forms of celebration, tears of joy, and widespread use of iPhones, iPads, and other non-Apple devices capturing the first kiss as husband and wife. If these terms are non-American, I have yet to witness any objection, protest, rebellion, or even the act of throwing away overly taxed English tea in response to a proclamation announced with royal overtones.

What is it that causes the change of identity from groom to husband and wife to bride? Tongue-in-cheek Englishness aside, it has nothing to do with me or the words I use to make the proclamation with royal overtones or not. There is no imperial insignia that acts like a regal scepter. It is all a play on poetic and harmonious words that make the occasion linguistically stand out in contrast to everyday vocabulary. Admittedly, my signature on the wedding certificate does matter, but it’s hardly a monogram and always made using black ink from an OfficeMax ballpoint pen.

Nevertheless, some may argue the State of Texas causes the change of identity from bride to wife and groom to husband. I disagree, largely for two reasons. First, having met the legal requirements prior to the wedding ceremony, what follows the proclamation is recognition that the bride and groom now have a change in identity. Out comes my OfficeMax pen recognizing the bride and groom are now legally husband and wife. However, the State of Texas does not cause this mysterious transition. It simply recognizes it within the requirements of law. Second, and far more interesting, I have witnessed this mysterious transition by officiating hundreds of wedding ceremonies standing just three feet from the bride and groom. Though I’m the nearest eye witness, I have absolutely no precise words to describe what it is that takes place. I can only guess.

Guessing is more precise than knowing – or appearing to know. For example, theologians may explain the transition in ontological and sacramental terms; but this presupposes the bride and groom acknowledge the nature of a wedding ceremony as a religious sacrament. Contemporary philosophers like Alain de Botton have explained the transition in terms of comedic relevance; but this reduces heartfelt promises to toleration and compensation. “I promise to take out the trash” is not really comparable to “I will love you, comfort you, honor and keep you in sickness and in health, forsaking all others”. Furthermore, poets like Robert Frost have explained the transition in terms of melancholic features by highlighting “until death us do part” as the great separator of the bride and groom; but who wants to emphasize a funeral at a wedding? Theology, philosophy, and poetry do not necessarily help answer the question about what it is that causes the change in identity from bride to wife and groom to husband.

Here is what I have observed over hundreds of wedding ceremonies: sharp intakes of breath, overt giggling, mild shaking, even poleaxing, and rivers of tears. These human responses indicate transition is happening, and they are not always a result of nervousness. Family, friends, and even the wedding crashers may cause some nervousness, but not to this extent. Interestingly, the most observable thing towards an accurate guess is the relationship of cognitive and sensory knowledge; or simply put, what happens in the head and heart of the bride and groom.

For example, standing three feet from the bride and groom I clearly articulate the line – in a crisp English voice of course – “to have and to hold”, followed by other short lines, “from this day forward”, “for better, for worse”, “for richer, for poorer”, “in sickness and in health”, “to love and to cherish”. All the bride and groom have to do is simply repeat those lines after me to each other. Though it is a simple task of repetition, when these lines are spoken it exposes a momentary and impassable roadblock between the head and heart of both the bride and groom.

The words may be poetic and harmonious in contrast to everyday vocabulary, but they are not new to the bride and groom. So why do the happy couple experience this moment of impassibility between what they rationalize in their heads and what they sense in their hearts? Well, they have mentally prepared for their unique wedding ceremony, but their hearts are often left to discover what will take place and vows are spoken to each other. In his book The Crock of Gold (1912), novelist James Stephens writes, “What the heart knows today the head will understand tomorrow”. He captures what happens. At some undesignated point in the wedding ceremony the hearts of the bride and groom sense a transition is taking place that cannot be rationally explained until sometime after the glorious proclamation, “I now pronounce you as husband and wife.” Quite often, it is the next day, or more precisely, the morning after. Therefore, the repetition of short lines between the bride and groom only shed light on their transition of identity to wife and husband. It does not cause it.

If it is not the State of Texas, the imagery of an imperial insignia that acts like a regal scepter, an authorized signature with an OfficeMax pen, the repetition of words, or my own Englishness (I jest) that causes the transition, what does? Theologians, philosophers, and poets do have something to say, but it is what and how they say it that can fail to answer the question of what it is that causes the transition of a bride to wife and a groom to husband.

I need to come back to what I have observed in hundreds of wedding ceremonies. Emotional responses to what is happening in the hearts of the bride and groom are best commented on by suspending predetermined language and meaning without debunking theology, philosophy, or poetry. In doing so, it not only reveals the cause of the transition, it also reveals the identity of the cause.

Now I need to make a blunt statement. I believe in God. However, I must be specific about this statement of belief. I believe in God as described in the Bible that informs the emotional responses of my heart and my knowledge of Him in my head. What this means is that I subject myself to the truth of the Bible as the primary source that informs what happens in my heart and head. With this is mind, I perceive God in the sharp intakes of breath, overt giggling, mild shaking, poleaxing, and rivers of tears in the responses of the bride and groom as they make their wedding vows to each other.

I need to make another blunt statement. The bride and groom do not have to believe in God, as I have described, or at all in order to experience Him. The truth of the Bible informs me that God made man and woman in His own image and likeness (Genesis 1:27). The truth of the Bible also informs me that the idea of a man and woman transitioning to husband and wife originated with God (Genesis 2:24). Could it be that when a bride and groom make their vows to each other, whether they believe in God or not, that God is present in the transition? Yes, because the truth of the Bible states it (Matthew 20:28).

What is the cause of transition of a bride to wife and a groom to husband? It is God, whether He is acknowledged or not, simply because human beings are made in His image and likeness, and because the idea of husband and wife is His. So, let’s come back to the glorious conclusion of a wedding ceremony announced with all its royal pomp, “I now pronounce you as husband and wife!”. Don’t you think God smiles when I invite the husband to kiss his wife for the first time? Truly, it is a regal thing to officiate a wedding ceremony in Austin Texas as an Englishman.

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.

Paradigm of John Lennon and Christianity

The World Almanac Book of Facts states that the average age of a Rock Star that died prematurely in the 20^th and 21^st century is just thirty-six. Heart attack and drug overdose are the highest causes. When the news is broadcast that a great musician, singer, writer, performer or entertainer has died our cultural response it to feel loss as though we actually knew them personally, when in fact, we just knew their music. Doug Van Pelt’s book Rock Stars on God interviews twenty current artists on faith from Alice Cooper, Static X, Nickelback, Metallica and Sunny Day Real Estate, just to name five. These interviews reveal that artists that we write-off as ‘the devil playing the devil’s music’ (after all, why would the devil play anyone else’s music?) as individuals being pursued relentlessly by God. Here is our cultural challenge, the Bible tells us just how relenting God is in pursuing the human race through his son Jesus reconciling the world to himself, but would we ever let Metallica loose with Alice Cooper to write and perform songs about God? I want to conclude with a challenge, but first let me state the obvious: God is absolutely relentless in pursuing us with his love. If I cannot start here, the following makes no sense.

The forty years of John Lennon’s life clearly show a man who was spiritually aware. After all, he was an image bearer like you and me. Steve Turner quotes Lennon in his book The Gospel According To The Beatles, “People got the image that I was anti-Christian or anti-religion. I’m not at all. I’m a most religious fellow. I’m religious in the sense of admitting that there is more to it than meets the eye. I’m certainly not an atheist. There is more that we still could know. I think this ‘magic’ is just a way of saying ‘science that we don’t know yet’ or we haven’t explored yet. That’s not anti-religious at all.” Often misquoted through the popular press and even banned from certain American radio stations in the Southern States, Lennon was undoubtedly being pursued by the relentless love of God in the person of the Holy Spirit. Turner continues in quoting Lennon, “I’m not saying we’re better, or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person, or God as a thing, or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong, or was taken wrong. And now it’s all this.” Underneath the interviews, newspaper articles, press conferences and especially his songs, was a curious subtext that influenced the culture(s) of his life beyond music to religion, philosophy and faith. God was relentlessly pursuing a man of influence who became a catalyst of influence. Turner continues, “I was brought up as a Christian and I only now understand some of the things that Christ was saying in those parables anyway – when I got away from the interpretations that were thrown at me all my life. There is more to it.” Look at the stages of Lennon’s life and the subtle influence of his context within the music. I cannot possibly agree with his statements but I can see the relentless love of God that persisted.

Early Christian influences 1940 – 1945

Lennon was raised in the most religious city in England during the 1940’s and 1950’s. His religious background was a mixture of Catholic, Fatalism, Welsh-Calvinism and Psychic from paternal and

maternal sides of his family. In his formative years Lennon witnessed a number of lovers with his mother while his father was away, that culminated in a decision he had to make at the age of five to stay with mom or dad, making his framework for family life dysfunctional. (Song ref: ‘Mother’ recorded in 1970 and 1975 from the album Shaved Fish)

Formative influences 1945 – 1957

His school years began at St. Peter’s parish church. It was in this local church that Lennon joined the choir, attended Sunday School and became an official member of the Bible Class. Local church life was a hub to Lennon’s spiritual formation outside the complexities of home from age eight to fourteen. He rehearsed for choir every Thursday evening, singing at Morning Prayers and Evensong on Sundays. At the age of nine he told his Aunt Mini he had seen God sitting by the fire (not under the influence of LSD in a psychedelic culture). Lennon was confirmed at the age of fifteen in the local church of his own free will. Part of his confession was to ‘reject the devil and all rebellion against God.’ (Song ref: ‘Working Class Hero’ recorded in 1970 from the album John Lennon / Plastic Ono Band)

Before Lennon was a Beatle 1957 – 1959

Lennon formed a band that had a number of evolving names from Black Jacks to the Quarry Men. The venues he played in were not the popular Liverpool clubs but church halls that would allow ‘shuffle music’ as morally superior to rock ‘n’ roll. Other band names Lennon went through were Johnny and the Moondogs, The Nerk Twins, The Silver Beetles, The Silver Beats and finally The Beatles. Lennon liked the music of Buddy Holly and the Crickets and wanted to keep an ‘insect’ theme. One name Lennon traveled under for safety was The Reverend Fred Gherkin, once again, humorously going back to his parish roots. (Song Ref: ‘In Spite of all Danger’ recorded as a single in 1958)

Pre-Beatlemania 1960 – 1963

Lennon toured Germany with the Beatles increasing in popularity arriving back in Liverpool. An obvious change had taken place in their image as a band – they were clean cut and dressed in suits looking respectable in keeping with the ‘Christian’ image. One of Lennon’s classic philosophical statements carried overtones of hopelessness during this time. Again, Turner’s book quotes Lennon saying, “This isn’t show business. It’s something else. This is different from anything that anybody imagines. You don’t go on from this. You do this, and then you finish.” It echoed of a time that would make front page news on every major paper seventeen years later “John Lennon Shot Dead.” What followed in Lennon’s life appears to be an intensity of God’s relenting love revealing Jesus counting down those seventeen years. After all, God knew that fateful day would come making Lennon a statistic in the Almanac Book of facts. (Song Ref: ‘I’m so Tired’ recorded on the album The Beatles in 1968)

Beatlemania 1964 – 1965

Growing popularity and an audience of 73 million on the Ed Sullivan Show gave John Lennon theunconscious opportunity to shape the culture himself. “We just behave as normally as we can. We don’t feel as though we should preach this and tell them that. You know, let them do what they like.” Not only were young people following his music and fashion but his philosophy of religion and faith. Elvis Presley, The Beach Boys, Johnny Kid and the Pirates, Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton and other artists of the same period had their following. But no one was enquiring into the philosophy, faith and religion of these performers. Lennon and the Beatles had a cultural influence surpassed by no one. Was this an evidence of a greater work in Lennon’s life? (Song Ref: ‘Revolution’ recorded on the album The Beatles in 1968)

The beginning of the end 1966 – 1968

On July 29th 1966 the teen magazine Datebook published an off-handed comment Lennon made earlier by announcing that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. This unhinged further statements to make a reconciliation with the Christian community. Maureen Cleeve from the London Evening Standard quotes Lennon, “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue with that; I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first – rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.” In an attempt to make amends Lennon protested the interpretations given to scripture. “I don’t profess to be a practicing Christian although I think Christ was what he was and anybody who says something great about him, I believe.” Then in 1966 Lennon launched a truth the church did not want to hear in the Westminster John Knox Press, “The youth of today are really looking for some answers, for proper answers the established church can’t give them…” In all the confusion and personal attacks Lennon leaves Jesus alone in 1968. “I suppose now what I’m interested in is Nirvana, the Buddhist heaven. I don’t know much about it, or really understand it enough to explain it.” Without Lennon realizing it, each time he cast himself away from Jesus – Jesus kept coming back into his context revealed in the songs. (Song Ref: ‘God’ from the album John Lennon / Plastic Ono in 1970)

The end of the Beatles – 1969 1970

Lennon and the Beatles travelled to India under the tutelage of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for spiritual guidance still unconsciously guiding the culture himself. “We’re all Jesus and we’re all God. He’s inside all of us and that’s what it’s about. As soon as you start realizing that potential in everyone, well, then you can be truly humble. That’s the whole bit. Jesus wasn’t God come down to earth any more than anybody else. He was just a better example of a good guy.” Not only was the Indian Guru a strong influence on Lennon but the use of LSD defined spirituality for him. “God isn’t in a pill, but LSD explained the mystery of life. It was a religious experience.” (Song Ref: ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds’ from the album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band recorded in 1967)

On his own – 1970-1980

Because of Lennon’s popularity and fame most of his life outside a studio was spent watching TV. He enjoyed viewing Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Jim Bakker and Oral Roberts. In 1972 Lennon wrote to Roberts asking what Christianity could do for him. Was it fake or the real thing? Roberts wrote back. “John, we saw you and the Beatles on television when you first came to America. Your talent with music was almost awesome and your popularity touched millions. Your influence became so widespread and powerful that your statement-the Beatles are more popular than Jesus- might have had some truth in it at that moment. But you know, our Lord said, I am alive for ever more. People, the Bible says, are like sheep and are often fickle, following this one day and something else the next. However, there are millions who have received Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and have been filled with the Holy Spirit. They love him. To them he is the most wonderful and popular man who ever lived because he is the Son of God and his name endures. I thank God that you see this, John, and finally regret thinking any man or group could be more popular than Jesus. Jesus is the only reality. It is Jesus who said ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.’ So, you see, your statement that because of your hard background you’ve never wanted to face reality is actually really saying you’ve never wanted to face our loving Lord. What I want to say, as I tried to say in my other letter, is that Jesus, the true reality, is not hard to face. He said, ‘Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’ You said, John, that you take drugs because reality frightens you. Remember as you open your life to Jesus, He will take all the fear away and give you peace. Peace that passes all understanding.” This letter has been widely publicized throughout the media with permission. In 1974 Lennon contradicted himself concerning the influence the Beatles had. “The Beatles were a kind of religion. They were the youth getting together and forming a new church, as it were.” In March 1977 Lennon’s wife, Yoko, travelled to Columbia to meet a witch that had been recommended to her as a ‘sure thing.’ After $60,000 were paid to the witch undisclosed advice was given concerning the life of Lennon. It was during this year of ‘77 that Lennon announced himself as a born-again Christian. He was moved by Franco Zeffirelli’s ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ starring the British actor Robert Powell. He took Yoko and his son Julian to an Easter service in April 1977. Yoko took him to Tokyo where he was left in a hotel room for hours. “I began to see all these different parts of me. I felt like a hollow temple filled with many spirits, each one passing through me, each inhabiting me for a little time and then leaving to be replaced by another.” This ended any interest Lennon had with Jesus. From Tarot Cards to Directionalists, Lennon would go nowhere or sign anything without the advice of I Ching. In 1979 Yoko travelled to Cairo where an illegal dig was taking place hoping to purchase artifacts with magic powers without success. Lennon delved into reading books on religion, psychics, occult, death, history, archeology and anthropology. Lennon read multiple books of which some were ‘Rebel in the Soul –An Ancient Egyptian Dialogue Between a Man and his Destiny (Bika Reed); Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, goddess worshippers, and other Pagans in America Today (Margot Adler); Practice Occultism (Madame Blavatsky); Zen Flesh, Zen Bones (Paul Reps); Siddhartha (Herman Hesse); The Doors of Perception (Aldous Huxley). In addition there were massive contradictions by reading the works of theologian Paul Tillich and atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. At another Easter occasion Lennon watched ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ again but this time with sarcasm. He joked that the movie should fast forward and get on with the crucifixion. It was here that Lennon made an outlandish statement. “I’m a pagan – a Zen pagan to be precise.”(Song Ref: ‘Imagine’ recorded on the album Imagine in 1971)

Legacy of feelings

The songs of Lennon after the Beatles reflect the personal feelings he had about Jesus and the constant journey of finding something or someone better. Without a doubt God was pursuing Lennon but because he rejected God, he therefore rejected his Son – Jesus. (1 Thessalonians 4:8) “Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.” God spoke to Ananias about Saul whose life was anything but Christian. Even so, God had a plan for him to influence ancient Europe. (Acts 9:15) “This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.” I must conclude that God had a plan for Lennon like Saul, but it went unfulfilled. The story of Lennon has challenged me in the way I think, pray and connect in the community of people who are being relentlessly pursued by God. Man always looks on the outside. In Lennon’s case it was a wild life of drugs, experimentation, sexual addictions and contradictions. But God always looks on the inside. I am no longer concerned about the outward appearance of the community Jesus is working in.

Conclusion

Here’s the challenge, when we look at our community what do we see? People we openly criticize stating, ‘this is who we don’t want to be!’ But those people (some of them magnificently talented like Lennon) are looking for people who will show them, relationally and lovingly, how to be. As Robert’s said, ‘Our only reality is Jesus.’ Does this mean God is still using Lennon’s life as an example? Maybe……