Yoga: The Pants Not The Practice

     In thinking in depth about this topic which was very hot for quite some time, I had
endeavored to approach it from a Biblical perspective as I do every topic of
discussion. The problem I ran into was the dearth of passages pertaining to modesty
of dress. I was actually a bit surprised. Not that my search was exhaustive, but the few
passages I discovered about proper attire were exclusively directed towards women
and beyond that, were not at all addressing the issue of modesty in regards to
sexuality. The passages were repetitive and were really focusing on, or rather RE-focusing
our views of what is important. (1 Tim 2:9–10, 1 Pet 3:1–6, etc.) So the
admonition in these passages to not be adorned with jewelry or expensive dress
wasn't so much a condemnation of those things but rather a point about what
should be valued in the life of a woman, both by women and men. Even if they could
be taken as commentary about those specific articles of clothing, which I do not feel
is true to the passages, it still isn't about sexuality.


     So where does that leave us? Well, scripture is not entirely silent on the subject. The
majority of the passages that are applicable, switch the question. Rather than
addressing the appearance of the woman, it directs its commands at the man. Part of
this is probably because they lived in a patriarchal society very much unlike what we
exist in today. Secondly, common dress for a woman in those cultures was probably
fairly modest to begin with. Oddly, when sinful women are described, much of the
focus is on jewelry more so than modesty of clothing. Outside of absolute
nakedness. Still, there is never a passage that tells women “don’t wear this or present
yourselves in this or that manner”, but it seems to come back to telling the man, “do
not look at her in a lustful way.”


     Yet, there is a definite idea presented in Scripture of what a holy and pure woman of
God should look like. But this is done by inference. When proverbs describes a
woman coming to a man dressed as a prostitute, we get the picture of a woman who
is dressed in a way that is meant to entice the man sexually. We can infer from this
that a pure woman of God would not want to dress in such a way. But what way is
that exactly? Is it purely a matter of how many inches of material are in the clothing
of the women? Or is it where these pieces of material are placed on the body? Or
how tightly or loosely they adhere to the body? Or, maybe, it is purely a matter of
intent?


     This is where I land on these questions. These are not the right questions to ask, or at
least, these questions will not lead us to a place of truth on the topic. Scripturally,
intent rarely seems to matter. It didn't matter in the parable of the talents. It didn't
matter when Peter cut off the ear of the soldier. Some things are good, some things
are bad. Some things are right and some things are wrong, regardless of our intent.
So then it must be a matter of physicality, right? In my estimation, no.


      Time and time again when issues are raised within Scripture it tends to come back to
each person individually and the sacrifices they must make of themselves and their
own rights and freedoms for the benefit of others. Almost exclusively, this is directed
towards men. Especially in regards to sexuality and lust. When those are brought up,
it simply tells us to not do it, to not be involved in it. There is no discussion of the fact
that the woman was wearing this or that, or that she was acting in a certain way
toward him. None of that matters. And it is a high standard. If you look at a woman
lustfully in your heart, it is done. That is not followed by some dissertation about how
women should then dress and act so that they are not a temptation. Nothing like
that. It is simply, men, do not lust.


     Therefore the first thing I would conclude about yoga pants, as a man, is that, it
doesn't matter. It is up to me to do what is needed spiritually to be able to be faced
with this situation and yet not sin. Is it easy, or fair, or even possible? Maybe, maybe
not. As a Nazarene I believe that if God commands it then God is able to bring it to
reality in my life as I submit to Him. But even if I do not get to that point in my life,
God’s grace is sufficient. My response to men on this issue then is nearly as simple as
Scripture’s, no matter what you are faced with, it is your responsibility to not lust and
no one else’s.


      But that is not the final word on the subject. There is still the question of what
Christian women should view as appropriate to wear. There are many things to
consider here. I would say from the start that though it would be noble of any
woman to dress in a manner that would make it difficult to cause a man to lust, I do
not think that is a proper place to come from in this discussion. It is not the woman’s
responsibility to keep a man from lusting. The proposition is preposterous from the
start. Is that even possible? One of my favorite lines from any country song is from a
Dolly Parton song which says “you could stop traffic in a gunny sack.” And while it is
actually spoken of a man and meant to be a humorous exaggeration, it is closer to
the truth than most would like to admit. I am certain there are lust issues with the
men in the nations of burka-wearing women just as there is in countries such as a
Germany where public nudity is fairly commonplace. Men are attracted to women
regardless of what they are or are not wearing. So trying to find the truth in this
manner would be futile.


      We wear different clothing in different settings for different purposes. What is
appropriate in one place may not be in another. And some things may not be
appropriate anywhere. But with Scripture being nearly silent on the subject, who is
to know where those boundaries lie? Granted, that’s the real question at hand, it is
not new nor unique and it only manifests itself in the form of yoga pants at this point
in history. What about swimming attire? What about the length of dresses? What
about jeans? What about sporting uniforms? What about the fact that God created
humans to be beautiful and we are designed in His image? What about the fact that
in His perfect world, clothing was non-existent? This last question might give us a
good foundation on which to build our solution to this pressing issue.


      If God’s ultimate design is for all of us to live in a state of nudity and not blindly
ignorant of each other’s beauty, then what does that say about us now? Why do we
wear clothes at all? What is the origin of clothing? God designed the first article of
clothing, which was leather by the way. He did so because sin had entered the world
and now our bodies were no longer a source of beauty but of lust and sin. The entire
purpose for clothing was to cover our sin.


     So how does this affect us today? I think it should be in our minds, the purpose of
clothes when we decide what we are to wear. This again, is not to ask the question of
what will keep another person seeing me from sinning, but rather, what will keep me
from being presented as shameful or sinful to another person. This will be slightly
different depending on culture. It is not universal. And even though it is perfectly ok
to look to culture as a guide, as Christians, we should have our own standards
beyond culture.


     So let’s boil this down to yoga pants specifically. Are they revealing? Very. Could you
even tell they were on if they happened to be skin colored? Probably not. Showing
the world your butt is one thing but showing them other parts is even more of a
concern. And I have seen that personally. Most likely it is unknown to the woman
how revealing they really are. Are they different from swimming suits and bikinis? I
personally think they are because of how they are constructed. They are more
revealing than most swimming suits. Although I have seen swimming suits that were
pretty much see through when wet. Still, that is not common. And this makes it seem
to me that it defeats the very purpose clothing was created in the first place. But do
they serve a purpose? Yes. And a good purpose.


     The conclusion? I feel that if a Christian woman decides that clothing like yoga pants
are not appropriate to be worn in public and chooses not to wear them, she should
be commended for understanding the true Biblical principle of sacrifice and serving.
However, if a Christian woman decides that it is ok for her to wear yoga pants in
certain settings, I would only suggest to wear other clothing that keep certain parts
covered, keeping her in a place of presenting herself in a dignified manner. So not
for the guys, but for herself.


      And please note I specify a Christian woman. I do not think it is our place to suggest
this to other women. If they are not Christians, they have larger issues than what they
wear, and that is where our focus should be, loving them and caring for them.
If you are a Christian woman contemplating this issue, I would say, stop. Stop
confining it to yoga pants and start asking God to direct you in how you are allowing
God to work in your life by serving others. And I have confidence He will show you
the answer for you. And I will have confidence in you to make that decision,
whatever it turns out to be.


     And for guys, learn to live in step with the Spirit so much so that when you do see
that butt, you do see a person who God created beautifully and whom He loves and
cherishes. And treat her accordingly, in your mind as well as in life.

Why I Can't Write...And What I'm Going To Do About It

     My dive back into this blog that began early in the year, came to an abrupt halt this Spring. I have had no shortage of things to write about. There has been no shortage of topics I desired to weigh into with my insight. There has been no shortage of time, save for a few weeks of travel at the beginning of summer and at the end. Regardless, I found myself avoiding the blog and setting the topics at hand into the back of my mind. They have sat there quietly, simmering and being added to over the past several months.

     At last, several posts on Facebook and an article addressing the lack of quality, literary writers in Evangelicalism have made me evaluate what it was, exactly, that kept me from writing. The realization I have come to is my hesitation to write what I truly think on several currently hot topics is keeping me from writing at all. Sure, there are other topics I could write about without delving into controversial subject matter, and no doubt, some of that writing is going to fill the pages of this blog, however, I have discovered if I do not write about the things that burn deeply inside me, I have little interest in writing about the more surface subjects. So, I don't write.

     I need that to change. So what am I going to do about it? I am glad you asked. I am going to do what I promised to do when I re-started this blog. I am going to dive headlong into whatever topics I find interesting enough to write about. My thoughts are not conventional nor will they be popular. Or at least I do not think they will be. Maybe I will find that more people than just my shadow hold the same views as I do. But I will never find out if I do not write. So that is what I am going to endeavor to do.

The Story Behind The Story: "So"

So. So? So...

     What a unique word is the word, "So".

     I was lying in bed, as I am prone to do before I fall asleep, and the word "so" came to my mind. Things like this happen from time to time with me. I don't know if this is normal or not but it is normal for me. There are a lot of language things happening around me recently. I am trying to learn German. My son is learning Spanish, a language my wife speaks rather fluently. A friend of mine has been messing around with Chinese and Arabic. Therefore, when this word "so" popped into my head, I immediately thought about how I would describe or define this little word for someone who was learning English for the first time.

     I began running through its uses, in trying to determine a proper definition for this word that I use many times everyday. My son often quizzes me on the meaning of words I use that he doesn't know. What I have been finding is I can use a word properly yet have a difficult time actually stating the definition.  This was exactly what happened when I began quizzing myself on the meaning of the word "so". As I listed its uses in my mind, I came to the realization that this word could not be confined to a single definition. Its uses are great and varied.

      I rolled over and asked my wife to name off as many uses for the word "so" as she could. She came up with no less than 8. I came up with a few more. Now my interest was piqued. I took my iPhone from the nightstand and searched for the definition of this small word. What I found astounded me.

     Different dictionaries offered different lists of usage for this word but overall it was consistent that there are four main uses for the word "so". Within those four different uses, there are at least 20 and as many as 30 different definitions for "so".  No wonder I was having difficulty defining this word.

     The four uses are  1. an adverb having to do with degrees, 2. a conjunction, 3. an adjective having to do with agreement, and 4. a pronoun referring to something previously stated. This is pretty remarkable when you think of it. This two letter word can be used in nearly every part of speech save a verb. Is there another word in the English language, or in any language for that matter, that is as permeating as "so"?

     Here are just a few examples of the different definitions of "so" within its four main uses:

In the same manner or way :  "worked hard and so did she"

In a manner or way indicated or suggested : "do you really think so"

To an indicated or suggested extent or degree : "had never been so happy"

To a great extent or degree : "loves her so"

Therefore : "the witness is biased and so unreliable"

In order that : "be quiet so he can sleep" 

For that reason :  "don't want to go, so I won't"

Used as an introductory particle : "so here we are"

Often to belittle a point under discussion : "so what?" 

Used interjectionally to indicate awareness of a discovery : "so, that's who did it" 

Conforming with actual facts :  "said things that were not so"

Used in the phrase or to indicate an estimate, approximation, or conjecture: "stayed a week or so"

     And these are only a few of the 30+ definitions I found for this inconspicuous word.  This is just amazing to me. How does such a seemingly insignificant word become so integral to our everyday language? As you may or may not know, our English language owes more to the German language than anything else. When I went in search of how this word came to be, I discovered that this is a word taken directly from the German language. It is a word that is spelled, pronounced much to the same degree and used in the same fashion in both English and its original language, German.  The mysteries of this word continue to grow.  

     "So" is described by some as the most complicated word in the German language. The Grimm has 114 pages dedicated to the definitions and usages of the word 'so" in German. Unfortunately I do not read German fluently so I am unable to know if that document reveals the distant (it has been seen in the English language as early as 900 AD) origins of this astounding word. To think that this word has been completely absorbed into English from German without much departure from its original usage in German, and this over more than a millennium, boggles my mind.

      And still, as common as it is, how do you explain this word to someone who does not speak English or German as a first language? I have found this challenging. 

     So, the next time you find yourself using this little word, let come to your mind the vastness of these two letters and the magnificence of human language that can turn something so small into something so meaningful.

Is Eliminating Sports in Schools the Answer?

     A few years ago, a new principle of Premont High School in Texas was faced with a school failing so badly at its task of educating its students that it was in threat of being closed down for good. The actions he took to try to save his school were extraordinary.

     Among several actions he undertook to save a school over $400,000 in debt, while still educating it's students and adding two science labs, the most dramatic of all was the elimination of all sports for the following year. It was estimated doing so would save the school about $150,000 that year and allow them to focus on the task of educating their students. 

A good week in Premont

     As you would expect, there were many who disagreed with this extreme approach. At a school where the daily average percentage of absent students was around 20%, many parents and students alike claimed the only reason the attendance was even that high was due to sports. Without sports, no one would come to school, they said. 

     North America is unique in the world in regards to how sports are integrated as a part of our school system. With the dismal ranking our students achieve when compared to other countries, many who spend much less dollars per student than we do, the question must be asked, is school the proper place for youth sports?

     I grew up playing sports in school. During my grade schools years, mainly hockey and baseball were the sports offered. These were club sports at that age. Both cost money. Once I moved into middle school, sports were offered by the schools. I was involved in american football, then soccer and eventually, basketball. Sports were a significant part of my school life, even into college.

     Yet, with failing schools in America and growing expense of playing sports and the facilities required, it may be time for a serious discussion about whether or not sports have a proper place within the school system.

Premont football

     There are pros and cons to playing sports and likewise, for the main engagement of sports to be run by the public school system. There can be no denying the benefits of playing sports for the youth who play it. Learning hard work, teamwork and dealing with disappointment are all important aspects to becoming a mature adult. No activity teaches a child these things with more intensity than sport. The health benefits are obvious as well.

     There are of course negatives. The damage that can be done to a child by a poorly motivated coach are much more devastating than many would let on. Coaches are allowed to treat students in ways that would cause other school staff to be dismissed. Being bullied by the resident jerk in your class is wholly different than being bullied by your coach. Sadly, it happens every single day. And the physical damage that can be caused to growing bodies through repetitive and overly competitive training and playing can have lasting and negative effects on the student athletes.

     However, are the benefits of youth sport worth the cost in time, money, risk and health? I think they are. Nothing is without risk. We must always weight the cost.

     So the question isn't to play sport or not but rather, where is the proper place for sports in our society?

     There are two main benefits to having sports controlled by the public school system. This system allows almost anyone who wants to participate in the sport to play at some level. Of course this sin't the case throughout the entire United States or every sport offered. There are some schools that have tryouts because their systems can only handle a certain number of athletes. But it stands that many students who want to play are given the opportunity in school who would not have the same opportunity if sport were left solely to clubs. In many schools, ability isn't the deciding factor and cost is kept to a minimum because of the offsetting of the cost by the school's budget.

     The other claimed benefit is that having sport in school generates interest in attending school that may not be there for many students. This was one of the main arguments that pressed against the principle of the school in Texas. They argued that having the football program was, for many student athletes, the only reason they came to school at all. This, from a school that ran a daily average of 20% absenteeism.

     Yet, there are negatives to having sport in schools. The amount of time taken away from class by sport activities is substantial. From pep rallies, to team travel time and early dismissals due to tournaments, there is a definite impact on education time, not just for the athletes themselves, but for every student. For the athlete, it becomes even more of a burden. There is very little time to do homework or study for tests during the season. Especially for basketball and football players.

     Cost is another issue. Just because having sports in schools makes it affordable for students who might otherwise not be able to play a particular sport, it doesn't mean the sport is affordable. The costs do not change. What changes is who is paying for it. We often hear complaints about how much we spend per student in our public schools and yet fail to produce good students. What portion of that expenditure is going towards sports rather than education?  In the Premont school in Texas, the estimation was about $150,000 per year. This was for a small school district. The amounts for a large school district in a metropolitan area would be considerably higher. And this amount didn't include the upkeep that continued to be needed for the facilities. Nor would it have considered how much the School District could have recouped through the sale of facilities it would no longer need if sports were removed permanently.

     I tried to determine how much my local school district spent on sports overall but looking through the budget, it was impossible to tell. The budget is not itemized in that way. If I had to guess, I would say it was in the millions. This is still a small percentage of the overall budget. But it is a significant amount of money nonetheless.

     This is money that is collected from taxes and other sources for the education of the students yet is not used for education in any way. In fact, it could be argued, it is being used for activities that actually work to hinder the very education it was collected to provide.

Club sports start at a young age

 
      What would the alternative be? Creating privately funded sports clubs in each city would provide the opportunity to play sports while not interfering in schools. As one can imagine, there are positives and negatives to this situation as well. There may not be as much opportunity for less athletic students in clubs as there is in some school districts. The costs involved for the athlete would be higher than they are in the schools. This might keep some athletes from being able to participate as well. So you may have lower participation than currently is the case. But, you may not. There is always the possibility for the clubs to provide scholarships for athletes and the creation of leagues for players who are not able to play competitively with the better athletes. That would be up the people running the clubs.

     The benefits of having a club run athletics are numerous. The club can focus more on player development than simply winning championships. With athletes joining as children and remaining in the same programs through high school, the chance for proper development of the athlete is much greater than the current system. There would be greater emphasis in the clubs to provide quality training at the younger age levels because there is ownership of the program throughout that child's sports career. I firmly believe that the United States would develop even better athletes than we currently do, through a club based program rather than the current school based programs.

     But the largest effect would be how it changes the school system. Imagine a high school without sports. Imagine the change in the facilities. Imagine the changes to the the staff. Imagine the difference in the transportation systems. Imagine the difference in focus within the school day. Imagine how much time would actually be required each day to properly educate the students of the school. Imagine a school system where the students spend a third less of the day in school, with no homework.  What could be accomplished with an extra 4 to 6 hours a day?  The student would be free to join a sports club, and not be arriving at home after 6 pm to eat supper and then hit their homework. The student would be free to spend time learning an instrument or working a job, or spending time with their family or friends.

     This concept might be a huge shock to your way of thinking. But just spend a few minutes really thinking about how the typical school day would be effected if sports were removed from the responsibility of the school system.

Premont graduation

     When one weighs the negatives and positives, I cannot see a better way to help solve the issue of education in this country. With this one single change, we would be able to develop more highly educated students, students better prepared for their careers and better athletes. Accomplishing all this with potentially, a smaller burden on the tax payer.


    It at least deserves consideration. It worked in Premont. Attendance increased. Test scores increased. The budget decreased. The school was saved. Just think what it could do for your local school.

   

Noah

I would like to take the pleasure of introducing my first guest blogger on Nyk.pm. Steve Park has been a friend of mine for many years. He lives in the Kansas City area and his ability to see inside music and movies and theological issues has always impressed me. that is why I asked him to write for my blog when he can. I was very interested in hearing his take on the new movie Noah. I am sure you will enjoy it as well.

Noah

In life, as with this movie, we mustn't let our unmet expectations drive us to wallow in disappointment. Upon first hearing of a Noah movie I thought, "its about time someone tackled this epic". If Matthew 24:37 is any indication, one might say it's rather timely. Yet immediately, the debate and controversy began. A battle really, and not just over the minute details. The conversation over precision is unfortunate if necessary, yet it should at least be leading back to the main point, that Noah's story is a part of the gospel as a whole. I thought how can, or who would want to get the story of Noah wrong? Then I hear of Jewish atheist writers and a typical save the planet theme and my disappointment nearly brought me to just dismiss it. However, this is such a crucial story, a crucial part of history, and I'm not usually quick to boycott Hollywood's ignorance anyway (usually its just more of a consistent avoidance). Still I remained guardedly hopeful.

Noah

My growing skepticism made it difficult to apply myself in the theater at first, as the "earth first" plot began to unfold. However the movie eventually began to run along the ever familiar storyline, albeit about as parallel as a set of non-identical twins. Maybe a caveat would have been in order, "based on true events".

While the Biblical record of Noah and the flood is quite detailed in some ways, well researched extra-canonical liberties were taken to fill in the possibilities which were, for the most part, left to us as mysteries, such being the Nephilim, or Watchers, represented here as Tolkienish Ent-like stone beings capable of repentance and redemption. The more bothersome inclusion for many would have to be the anti-civilization theme so common today. It is true, sin thrives in the city yet it is first bred in the heart. So the real answer is responsibility, not this heartless, constantly forced religion of "sustainability".

Tubal-Cain

Somewhere through the film as I engaged, I began to recognize the struggle often only attributed to our own personal one, where we wrestle with God alone in secret at night. This was quite vividly demonstrated by the villain, city ruler Tubal-Cain in his calling out to God, "I am a man made in Your image! Why do you not converse with me?! …Speak to me!" I thought, "sure, most of us at times come to that point, yet for sure 'the heart is selfish and desperately evil'". Everyone knows of the Creator, it's just that we wish to create Him in our image instead. This honest struggle seen also in Noah, began to be one of the most crucial aspects of this story, and in the end, nearly caused the earth-focus to seem unnecessary. Except that, in reality, its as though Noah, being an imperfect person, had simply gotten God's purpose for this mostly wrong. He had misunderstood God's main reason for this cleansing, and though that care of creation drove him to fulfill his understood purpose, in the end he found out this renewal was all meant for a restoration of the proper intention for our relationships, that being love and grace.

Ila and the wizardly Methuselah

In light of that, some who left the movie early in discouragement, may have avoided a blessing. Just as Ila, Noah's adopted daughter could have given up on God and then missed that encounter with the wizardly Methuselah, a turning point giving her a way to soon see life as through the eyes of the Creator.

God chose Noah, however imperfect, because he knew through him and his steadfastness He could mete out, not just His justice, but His love and mercy... eventually being ultimately accomplished in Christ.

::Steve Park

Noah: A Disaster Movie of a Different Sort

This movie is a disaster.

     If you now think that you know what I think of the movie Noah, you are wrong. Read on.

     I read a myriad of reviews about Noah before going to see it. When I saw the first trailers, I was pretty excited to see this movie. I didn't know anything about it besides what I saw in the trailer. However, after reading many reviews, mostly from Christian reviewers, I was convinced it would be a waste of my time. I then watched a podcast by The Blaze featuring Greg Thornbury, president of King's College, who not only had seen the movie but had the opportunity to be a part of a small group with the director himself. Hearing his evaluation of what was done with this movie; to the story, and to the theology, made me rethink whether I would see this movie or not.

     Noah hit the theaters on Friday. I was still wavering between seeing it or ignoring it. Then a friend on Facebook linked to a review of Noah by William P. Young, author of The Shack. He hated it. My mind was made up, I was going to this movie and I was going opening night.

     Many of my friends from around the country went as well. To a one, they disliked this movie. There are a couple who I haven't read their thoughts yet. They are writing their own reviews which I will post here, unedited. I am anxious to read their thoughts.

     As I thought about this movie and the controversy surrounding it, it seemed to me there are three areas where this movie needs to be evaluated. How faithful is Noah to the actual story? How accurate is Noah to the theology of the story of the Flood? How does Noah stand as a film?

     I sat down in my seat at the theater with my extra-buttered popcorn and my diet Dr. Pepper. What I was expecting to see was the "christian" version of Avatar.  As I stood up from my seat to toss my bucket of popcorn crumbs floating in a liquid that is clearly not real butter and my empty cup into the trash, I knew that what I had watched was not Avatar. Not by a long shot.

Grizzly Adams...I mean Noah

     Probably the most controversial part of Noah was the apparently dramatic departure from the Biblical story-line. To be sure, there are significant changes to the story of the Flood found in the Bible. All the ages of the characters were modified greatly. Noah was 500 years old when he was instructed by God to build the ark. His sons were around a hundred years old. How was this supposed to be accurately depicted?  We have no sense of reference when it comes to a person that old. The world was a vastly different place at this time, how does a man look and act, who is 500 years old and still capable of building a large ship? I have no problem with the changing of the ages. It would have been more accurate to have the sons already adults and married, as they were in Scripture, but this doesn't make a huge difference for me. While the movie does accurately place 8 total members of Noah's family on the ark, the circumstances of them coming to be on the ark are very different. Again, I am not too concerned about this change.

Noah's young family

     Here is where we must admit, and understand something very important about the making of this story into a movie. In the Biblical account of the Flood, precious little happens. There are almost no details. This being the case, it is required of the maker of such a movie to create a story nearly out of whole cloth. This is the story that Aronofsky came up with. I might have created a different story. It wouldn't have been any more or less accurate or better than what he designed. There is really nothing to go on.

     Some of the other variances include the death of Lamach, Noah's father. The only thing we know about Lamach's death is his age. But since the ages in the movie are totally changed up, it is very difficult to complain about this. My suspicions are that the direction Aronofsky took in this regard had much to do with answering the question as to why Noah went to see his grandfather Methuselah rather than his father.

     Probably the largest departure from the Biblical account is the handling of the angels or "sons of God", who came to the earth and defiled themselves with human women. This is the aspect of the movie that is most derided by the people I have read. In the movie, these angels came to earth to help mankind after they were banished from the Garden. In the Biblical account, the only motivation for coming to earth was to fulfill their lusts, which is a very different motive indeed. For me, this is the greatest disappointment I had with the movie. If Aronofsky had stuck to the real story in this area, it would have made for some very dramatic and epic scenes. It would have brought the evil of mankind to a whole different level. But he chose to go a different route. I will let you be the judge on whether that was a good idea or not.

A Watcher coming to Earth

     This brings us to what I believe is the deciding factor to evaluating Aronofsky's faithfulness to the story. Nearly every one of what has been attributed as departures from the Biblical account of the Flood story are aspects derived directly from the Book of Enoch. If you are not familiar with the Book of Enoch, it is a book contained in the Apocrypha. It is thought to have been written in about 300 BC. Though it was a book read and used by the Jews of the day, it was not considered in the canon of the Old Testament. However, the Book of Enoch is quoted in the Book of Jude in the New Testament and many other phrases contained in the New Testament seem to be derived directly from the Book of Enoch, such as "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords". Interestingly, the major focus of the Book of Enoch is the pre-flood world of Noah and the events leading up to the Flood. Aronofsky, rightly in my opinion, garners most of the story he uses to fill in the blanks left by the Biblical story from the Book of Enoch. Since the Book of Enoch is quoted in the New Testament and was clearly a book known, read and trusted by both Jews, before and during Jesus' ministry on earth, and the Christians of the early church, there can be no complaint that I would entertain about Aronofsky's use of its details in this movie.

     Still, Aronofsky chooses to create an amalgam of the details found in the Book of Enoch about the angels. Maybe he felt that a faithful rendering of this aspect of the story would complicate things too much and take away from the real focus of the story. I can only speculate of course, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

     In the Book of Enoch, the angels that came to earth and defiled themselves with humans were called Watchers. They came and did what they did out of selfish lusts and rebellion against God, not for benevolent reasons as described in the movie. I can surmise he changed this aspect of the story because of another change he made. In Enoch, God sends angels to help Noah build the ark. In the movie, the damned Watchers help Noah build the ark. This can only make any sense if the Watchers had good motives to begin with, however misguided they were.

     In Enoch, the punishment for the Watchers who came to earth was to be encased in stone in the earth. This is why the angels were represented in the movie as these weird, Transformer-type, stone giants. (Contrary to many reviews  have read, there are no Nephilim in the movie)

     In Noah, the Watchers end up being the angels who help Noah and his family build the ark, and in the final twist to the story, when the Watchers petition God for forgiveness, as they indeed do in Enoch, they are forgiven and returned to Heaven. In Enoch, they are denied their petition and damned forever. Scripture would suggest a similar fate.

Noah

     Another aspect people seem to have an issue with is Noah's struggle to come to terms with any reason for any of mankind to survive the Flood, including himself and his own family. In my estimation, I think this part of the story was an answer to a very important event that happens after they eventually leave the ark. This is a huge part of the story of Noah. After the flood waters subside and Noah and his family have survived, Noah inexplicably gets drunk and is found by his sons passed out and naked. Through this event, Ham is cursed and the cycle of evil continues on the earth. Why does Noah, a man who "walked with God" and had just survived and witnessed such an incredible event, end up in such a drunken state? Neither Genesis nor the Book of Enoch lend us a clue. Aronofsky, showing his absolute dedication to faithfully expressing the true essence of this story, couldn't leave this out. But he needed to give us a reason for it. His answer was to show Noah's struggle with the fact that though he was the only one on earth who still followed God, there were still aspects of what made the rest of mankind evil within himself and each member of his family.  Can anyone argue with this? I think it was brilliant, and it is one of the most powerful messages of the entire movie because what is lifted up and glorified through it is the love, mercy, and faithfulness of the Creator.

     This brings me to the theology of the movie. What does the movie Noah say about God? This movie presents God as the Creator. Not a "Force" or an "alien", but as a supreme Creator. And not just that, but a Creator who cares about His creation. A Creator who is actively involved in His creation.

     What does this movie say about Creation? It shows a Creator who created the universe in six days. It shows a Creator who created each creature after its own kind, especially and extravagantly, human beings, Adam and Eve. It presents Adam and Eve as husband and wife. In direct contrast to our current world's diminishing of that truth in the promoting of promiscuity and homosexuality. The depiction of Adam and Eve in their glorified, "in the image of God" states is stunning. It does continually refer to the animals as "innocent" which, of course, is not a correct view of creation. All of creation was affected by the Fall, including animals. And Scripture makes it very clear that all of creation needed to be destroyed, not just humans.

     There is a scene near the beginning of the movie where a dog-like creature is fleeing from some hunters and comes across Noah and his son's path as they gather plants for food, the result being a statement clearly establishing Noah as being a vegetarian and the other men as being meat eaters. I have read many who have cried about this making Noah out to be some environmentalist wacko. If you read the Genesis account, you will see that God did not give the animals over to be food until after the Flood. He actually gives this command to Noah at the same time that He instructs him to take dominion over the earth and populate the earth. So this representation of Noah is 100% Biblically accurate, if we are to believe that Noah "walked with God". It is speculation, of course, that the other men would have been meat eaters but it is certainly not far-fetched since God had not allowed such a thing yet and men were wholly rebelling from God in every conceivable way.

     In the end, theologically, this movie is absolutely sound. This realization stunned me to be honest. In a world where every new movement in the church is trying to pull us away from Scripture and particularly, Genesis and all of its truth, to have a movie directed and written by two men who are not explicitly Christians and released by a wholly secular company, is nothing short of amazing.

Dream sequence of the killing of Abel

     So, how about Noah as a work of art? If you have watched any of Aronofsky's other films, you already know that he is unconventional. If you want to experience a cohesive and consistent film, an Aronofsky creation is not for you. Noah is no different. Aronofsky uses several different mediums to tell this story.  I am not a student of film enough to know all the proper terms to adequately describe the different forms he uses throughout the movie. Just know that while the majority of the movie is filmed in a very crisp and realistic way, there are dream sequences and visions that take on an entirely different look. There are scenes that are very "artsy" for a severe lack of a better word. There is CGI as one would expect. Some of it is very good, such as the flood waters. Some of it is in sci-fi action movie styles such as the Watchers. Some of it is rather poor, such as the dog creature in the beginning of the movie. I think the biggest failure in this regard is the varying styles force our minds to constantly shift our expectations of what we are seeing or should be seeing. When I go to a LOTR's movie, I am not surprised by an Orc. But when I am watching a movie presented in such a realistic manner as Noah is, my mind has a hard time processing the Watchers. Or the almost Japanese martial arts style flinging of and drowning of people in the flood scenes. Not to mention the huge visual deviations in the vision sequences and the telling of the creation story. There is so much going on from scene to scene that my mind had a difficult time following it. Not that what I was seeing didn't make sense from a story standpoint but rather from an artistic standpoint. It caused me to be discombobulated and uncomfortable throughout the movie.

     Another aspect this brought into play was the world that was presented to us. Somehow, and I have no explanation as to why, it lacked the vastness that the movie required. This was a story of the entire earth, and it was presented that way, but it felt like it was taking place in very small settings. It felt very claustrophobic to me. One reason this might have been is that we are never taken to where the rest of the men live. We only see what they have left behind. We meet them in both small groups and large armies appearing out of nowhere, but we never see them in their own habitat until they become camped out in the forest surrounding the ark. At that point in the movie it seems as though everyone on earth is in one place, and though there is a huge landscape for them to camp, they choose to set up so confined together that they are literally walking over each other. It all seems very suffocating. And while there are a huge amount of people there in relation to the few members of Noah's family, there just doesn't seem to be a lot for the entire earth's population. If we were given an idea that there were other similar tribes of people around the world, maybe it would have seemed different but just the opposite was communicated to me at least by the fact of their leader was a direct descendant of Cain and the very same person who killed Lamach.

     There were scenes that communicated how large the scheme of things were, like when the entire planet is shown engulfed in dozens of hurricanes covering its entire surface. What an amazing graphic that was! But those were fleeting moments and did little in relieving the feeling of this world of Noah being very myopic.

Ham and his bride to be,

     The other area that made this movie feel lacking for me was the poor character development. This is such a vague thing for me. Maybe others understand it as a science but I am never able to put a finger on it. Some movies spend a full thirty minutes at the beginning of the movie developing the characters and it makes no impact on how I feel about them, while other movies develop deep characters that evoke immense feelings from me in three minutes. This movie somehow failed at creating characters that pulled me one way or that other. Take Ham as an example. His appearance made me sympathize with him, even while he was betraying his father, scheming for his death. I found myself hoping against hope that he would turn from what he was doing and become a part of the family. I shouldn't have. I should have felt contempt for him. I didn't. Even as he walked away at the end, I felt sorry for him. Feeling sorrow for him would have been better than that. But I wasn't invested enough in him for even that. And it was like that with every character in the movie, except the king of men. He was aptly repulsive. Oddly, the character that seemed to connect with me, and even the rest of the theater, from what I could tell, was Methuselah. I say oddly, because he was introduced late in the movie and shared very little screen time. A perfect example of how great character development can be had in mere seconds. He was a deep character and probably one of the most emotional points of the entire movie was his search for the ever elusive berry.  How that could trump the death of tens of thousands of people, I don't know.

     The end result of this poor development of characters for me was a suffering of an edge and intensity when it came to several climatic scenes. This movie should have invoked fear, dread, disgust, horror, sorrow, trepidation, and great relief. It just didn't do this for me. I found myself asking why. I found myself trying to search for the emotions within myself during the movie. Trying to dredge them up to match what my eyes were witnessing and my ears were hearing. But I couldn't. When Lamach was murdered I should have felt anger and anguish. When Noah was in the midst of the horror that was the encampment of men, I should have felt disgust and sorrow. When Noah was about to murder his two infant grandchildren, I should have felt extreme sadness and dread. When the rain finally stopped, I should have felt amazing joy and happiness. I just didn't. I can't explain why. Something didn't connect. Something didn't click for me. Maybe it was uncertainty. Maybe it was being thrown so far off balance by the retelling of a story I thought I knew in my head that I had guarded my emotions or was simply unable to access them. Whatever the reason, the moments of impact were great, but not very impacting. And that is too bad.

"Artsy"

     Despite all of that, there were some great things about this movie. If you like abstract and artsy movies, you will enjoys aspects of Noah. It is Aronofsky's calling card. He does it well and this movie is no exception. The script is really good. It has its subtleties and its self contained history. It has humor and passion and conviction. And it relays incredible truths. The more I think about the dialogue and the words used, the more I am amazed at this script. It astounds me that something as banal as Evan Almighty had Bible study material made for it, whereas Noah is being shredded on all levels despite being incredibly well written.

     The acting is top notch. Outside of possibly a poor choice in the casting of Ham, every actor and actress in Noah does a magnificent job. And there are some absolutely amazing scenes in this movie.

     The telling of the creation story is the best I have ever seen. When God said "Let there be light" I was literally pushed back in my seat. What followed was an ultra fast paced visual journey through the six days of creation, culminating in the Garden of Eden and a wonderful depiction of Adam and Eve. Again, the best I have ever seen. I wish I had always envisioned them in this way. I will from now on.

     Something that was repeated throughout the movie was looking to the sky longing for some sign of the Creator. That was probably one of the most emotion evoking parts of the movie for me. It was different characters at different times in the movie but each time it became more and more filled with anxiety. I strained my eyes to see even the slightest sign of God emanating through the clouds. My heart yearned for the hope that something would appear. But there was nothing. It really drove home the idea of what it must have felt like to be one of the only people on earth who still believed in the true Creator during a time when God was mostly silent. We cannot imagine what that would have been like. We have the Holy Spirit who speaks to us daily. Noah had nothing but stories and faith.

     And then there is the moment when the flood finally strikes and Noah and his family are huddled inside the ark with only the pounding of the water and the screams of the dying, echoing in their ears. What horror! The scene then moves outside the ark and we see one of the last of the mountain tops, covered in people trying to escape the waters, only to be swept off the rocks by enormous waves. It was a scene I will never forget.

     But the scene that hit me the hardest was the final time we look up into the sky. It is the last moment of the movie. And a rainbow breaks across the sky. If you are not one who understands the significance of that scene, then its magnitude is probably lost one you. But for those who understand, that last moment is incredible. The promise, the love, the mercy, the faithfulness, the hope for mankind and the sign that the Creator is indeed there and has not forgotten us was absolutely devastating in its power.

     The story of Noah is that a God who created the universe and then specifically man, in His own image, is heartbroken when Eve takes the forbidden fruit. He heart is wrenched when even His angels desert Him and His beloved children become vile, evil creatures, destroying all He created. But yet there was one man who still followed all he could of what he knew the Creator wanted him to do. Noah wasn't perfect. He had in him the same sin that destroyed the rest of mankind. But he had faith in God. And the Creator was faithful to him. He rescued Noah and all of creation through him. God loved, He showed mercy, He executed justice, He was faithful to His Creation. He never deserted them even when they did so to Him. That is the story of Noah. And that is the story told in Noah, the movie. I challenge you to go back and read the story of the Flood in Genesis and see if you could do better. Maybe you could. I know I couldn't.

     So then, why do I say this movie is a disaster? I say that because of how it was marketed. The way it was presented to the Christian community in particular does the movie a disservice because it created expectations that could not be met by this movie. Paramount knew what was in this movie and should have never suggested that is was specifically the re-telling of the Bible story. If they had simply said it was based on a true story or something of that nature, people would have accepted that. At least most people would. What has happened instead is that many people are not even going to go. They are going to simply react by what others have said and they are going to miss out on one of the greatest telling of a Biblical stories ever to be put on film. This is not a children's tale. It is sophisticated. It requires thinking. It requires understanding. It probably requires multiple viewings. This was a disaster because it is not going to accomplish half of what it could. The result is that a movie that accurately depicts the Creator in a way that is not even guaranteed from our own pulpits on Sunday mornings is going to be buried and lost because of poor marketing. That is a disaster.

     When all is said and done, I would encourage you to see Noah for yourself. Discard your preconceived notions at the theater door. Allow the Holy Spirit to speak to you and reveal the true God of the universe to you through this film. If you have already watched Noah. Go again. Watch it with a fresh eye. Let it teach you of God's everlasting love and mercy. It was a great miracle that Noah, his family and all the creatures of Creation survived the Flood. But it is also a miracle that this film ever got made. It would be a disaster of an entirely different kind if someone missed out on its true message: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...and He loves us.