Defining Ourselves and Our Past

Today, my church started a new series called "defined." Naturally, the goal of the series is to discuss what defines us as Christians. I am intrigued to see where this sermon series will end up. It is my hope that we will eventually discuss the doctrinal issues that define us as Christians. Nevertheless, today the topic of discussion dealt with how, or if, our past defines us. More specifically, it discussed the role of guilt that follows any type of error or shortcoming. Guilt can be suffocating and crippling, locking us in a cycle devoid of hope. On the other hand, God can use guilt to motivate one to repentance and in time salvation. All of this is true.

As I sat there listening, I could not help but ponder the relationship between our guilt, our past, and what defines us. Does salvation from guilt translate to severing our present and future from our past? Are we, or should we, be "defined by our past?"

Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that we are, on one level, "defined by our past." I don't think our salvation from guilt and sin should be totally severed from our present and future. Our overcoming of guilt, our dealing with our past sins and shortcomings should not equal the rejection of our past. I believe that even a redeemed past "defines us." If our past is a part of "our story," and if "our story" largely defines us, then our past--no matter how egregious and scary is was--defines us, at least partially. Is this not the rationale behind giving a testimony?

The beauty of redemption is that it ensures that our past defines us in a controlled, qualified manner. On this side of redemption, our past never cripples us, and it certainly does not have the last word. However, if we are honest with ourselves, there is an irony in all of this. Every time we tell "our story," give our testimony, we relive the guilt and shortcomings of our past, and there is always the chance that it will cause more pain.

Now this is one of the reasons why I am a proponent of Wesleyan theology, with its emphasis upon the victory over sin and the effects of sin. You see, the redemptive and nourishing power of the Holy Spirit is so great, so powerful, that we do not have to live in fear that the guilt and errors of our past will once again consume us. Daily we allow the grace and power of the Holy Spirit to drive us onward, allowing our past to be a powerful testimony for the victorious power of the Spirit.

Noah, Context, and Why Evangelicals Should Not Get Upset

I will say up front that I have not seen the recent film adaptation of Noah by Darren Aronofsky, but I plan to...at some point. I will wait for it to come out on the Redbox probably. I mean, who can beat a 1 dollar movie rental? That has to be one of the greatest inventions of modern America.

I will also say up front I realize that there is a cacophony of voices weighing in on this topic. Therefore, my voice will probably be lost in the mix. Nevertheless, when my colleague John Barnts registered some thoughts on the subject of "context" for evaluating this film I decided to register my own opinion, knowing full well that it will be lost. In the spirit of John's words of advice (...and yes he is very perceptive when it comes to analyzing and evaluating films), I want to come at this from the context of hearing the director's own statements, for such a posture is critical when evaluating anyone's work.

The Washington Post put out an interview with Aronofsky, and you can read it here. In that interview I found a few things that were interesting.

•  Aronofsky believes that the Noah narrative revolves largely around the tension between wickedness and forgiveness. So much so, Aronofsky wanted to "dramatize the decision God must have made when he decided to destroy all of humanity." An interesting component of this dramatization was a decision to embody this decision in the character of Noah. "We wanted to get that grief, that struggle, and stick it into Noah, so we can understand as people what it must have felt like." Honestly, I have no problems with this decision. The reality is that the Noah narrative gains its impact and appeal in the silence of Noah (count how many times Noah actually talks during the flood event...). Much like Genesis 22, the text wants us to ponder the dynamics of this event.
• Aronofsky admits that the Ham/Noah relationship was a driving factor in the development of his screenplay. Speaking to the Ham/Noah/drunkenness episode that takes place after the flood, "To us that was a huge clue to their relationship. So we started to build a whole story out of that relationship between Noah and Ham and how they got there." I find this decision and method very interesting...and I am not sure what to make of it right now. One of my professors said that he thought Ham was "creepy" (or something like that). Regardless, the events at the conclusion of Gen 9 are....interesting. I think that Aronofsky has a legitimate leg to stand on here.
• First and foremost Aronofsky sees himself as an entertainer, who seeks to entertain through exciting and emotional movies. 

In my mind, these points (as well as others, such Aronofsky's tendency to make dark and deeply symbolic movies) give one important insights into Aronofsky's intentions associated with making this movie. However, there is another variable that bears upon any Evangelical's evaluation of this movie--the text of the Bible. I have already mentioned the "silence of Noah" throughout the flood episode, a silence that breeds questions. In addition, there is a peculiar bracket that appears around the flood narrative. In Gen 6:5, the text says that God realized that "every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually" (NRSV). In Gen 8:21, the Lord proclaims that he will never curse the ground again, "for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth" (NRSV). So, we have this recurrence that brackets the flood event under the realization that the inclination of the human heart is evil.

But wait...what?! There is a recognition that humanity is depraved, then the flood (which is supposed to somehow rectify the situation), and then a re-acknowledgement of the same reality of human depravity...what does this mean? It means that the biblical text is recognizing that humanity's depravity continues, and it continues to exist alongside a gracious God. Perhaps these are the things that Aronofsky noticed when he grew up with the Noah story (...he grew up in a Jewish home...), the things that drove him to emphasize the themes of justice vs. mercy, good vs. evil, and what it means to be human.

I realize that as an Evangelical there is a innate reaction to put up a fight against anyone who appears to be challenging the biblical text. I get it. However, in this instance, this is a man who has used the contours of the text for his purposes, and those purposes are creative and for entertainment. In other words, based on what I have heard him say and my understanding of the demands of the text, I do not think that he is "challenging  or rewriting the Bible." [...and yes, perhaps my opinion will change when I watch the movie. However, I doubt it based upon some reviews by people that are more intelligent, perceptive, and theologically aware than me.]. So, lets not get too upset...