HOLLYWOOD’S LOVE/HATE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BIBLE

March 27, 2014

 

Courtesy of a multi-million dollar ad campaign, the new Hollywood “blockbuster,” “Noah”, will debut this weekend to what Paramount hopes will be huge throngs.  “Inspired by” (according to the ads) the Biblical account of the flood, the film will ostensibly thrill us with one hundred thirty million dollars of CG effects and Russell Crowe portraying Noah.  It will also never use the word “God” (a conscious decision of the director, Darren Aronofsky); portray Noah as a fratricidal maniac who seeks to kill his own family while on the ark, and center its message on the fact mankind is being punished for the sin of destroying the environment.  But, hey, it’s still a Biblical epic, right?  After all, they titled it “Noah,” didn’t they?  Allow me to quote a headline from the “Daily Beast,” a very progressive website.  “Noah is a Global Warming Epic About the Battle Between Religion and Science, Says Cinematographer.” Does that sound like he was out to make a Biblical epic to you?  How often are we going to have to be exposed to travesties like this before we finally come to realize that Hollywood has no respect for the Bible. Its only interest in the word of God is using it to profit off people’s faith, even as they trash it to advance their own agenda.

Hollywood truly has a love/hate relationship with the Bible.  They love what it can produce at the box office (nearly a world-wide billion dollar take for “The Passion of the Christ”).  They love that a story “based” upon the Bible promises a built-in cadre of consumers in Christians who wish to see the Biblical account portrayed on film.  The problem is, they also seem to pretty much hate the Bible and everything it stands for.  Or, if that is hyperbole, at best they seem to have a commonality of disrespect and irreverence for the Biblical text.

“Son of God” is presently showing in theatres, and has had a fairly decent box office.  While, overall, it is fairly faithful to the Scripture as it portrays the ministry of Jesus, it still could not leave well enough alone.  Mary Magadalene portrayed as a kind of thirteenth apostle? Jesus basically begging Judas to betray Him? And I realize I’m nitpicking, but Jesus called to Lazarus from without the tomb not within.  Why not just portray the story as the Bible presents it?  Is that really asking too much?

“Son of God” is part of a larger “The Bible” project which was aired on cable TV to respectable audience numbers.  I really don’t have a problem with movies based on the Bible adding plausible back stories.  In fact, I think that adds interest and depth to the story without changing the basic narrative.  But, if you’re familiar with “The Bible” and its portrayal of OT characters, some of their portrayals were ridiculous.  Probably the most egregious (of many) examples to me was the story of Samson.  In their rendition of the story, he is portrayed as a large, muscular black man.  Plead poetic license, political correctness, or whatever, that is laughably, ridiculously inaccurate.  There is no reason or justification for changing Samson’s race.  He was a Jew.  Period.

www.rottentomatoes.com is a website which contains, among other things, a compendium of reviews of upcoming movies written by a variety of critics.  Check out the site and note the reviews of “Noah” vs. “God’s not Dead.”  The reviewers are giving “Noah” a seventy six percent approval rating while granting “God’s not Dead” and abysmal twenty five percent.  And, therein, lies a perfect example of the love/hate relationship Hollywood has with the Bible.  (And, by the way, I am linking the sycophants who review the movies with those who make them.  They clearly possess the same value system). 

“God’s not Dead” was not produced by a Hollywood studio.  It has been released on what would be considered a very limited basis.  It is unabashedly pro faith in God.  It argues that belief in God is not anti-intellectual or without good reason.  The arguments presented for the existence of God are logical and plausible. The major characters who are Christian are portrayed in a sympathetic fashion.  Yet, read the few critics who deigned to review the movie.  “Disaster,” “angry,” and “ham-fisted” are just a few of the terms used to describe the film.  Why?  Because it doesn’t fit the anti-faith, anti-God template which most films do.  Yet, if you look at the website, eighty six percent of the people who viewed “God’s not Dead” recommended it.  To the surprise of everyone but its audience, it finished third at the box office last weekend.  This pro-Bible, pro-God movie, because it doesn’t bash Christianity and faith is trashed and ripped by Hollywood.

Along comes “Noah.”  Once again, quoting the critics from rottentomatoes, “Noah” is “creative,” “thought provoking,” and “epic.”  The fact that it has no respect for the Biblical narrative and little connection with the actual story as presented in Scripture is basically viewed as a badge of honor.  It is “gritty” and “awe inspiring.” The idea that it also might be blasphemous is not even on the radar screen.

Once again, using the power of Biblical story and the faith in God of many to generate interest, Hollywood unashamedly takes the mantle of faith and then proceeds to absolutely, unequivocally, shred it.

Cynically, I admit, I have long since ceased to expect anything from Hollywood except disappointment when it comes to its handling of the Bible.  Perhaps the best analogy I can draw is:  What kind of film would Dan Rouse produce if he were to seek to portray the life story of a famous atheist such as Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher?  As a believer, it would be difficult (yeah, impossible) for my religious and philosophical differences not to color my portrayal of these individuals.  I can guarantee the portraits would not be sympathetic.  So why should we expect atheists (the producer and director of “Noah” are both atheists), to produce a film based on the Bible that would be anything other than exactly what they’ve produced – a blasphemous travesty.  They have managed to take an amazing, thought provoking, frightening account of both the wrath and mercy of God shown against the backdrop of rebellious mankind and turn it into a violent, twisted advertisement for environmentalism.

It is the quintessential example of Hollywood’s love/hate relationship with the Bible.

Dan Rouse

THE “SEXUAL ORIENTATION” CHAOS

March 20, 2014 

My (admittedly half-hearted) attempt to follow the on-going debate over LGBT rights, sexual orientation, and gay marriage and adoption, has been both enlightening and frustrating.  Just perusing a few of the dozens of articles on LGBT topics quickly reveals the deep cultural, religious, and philosophical divide which now exists in this country.  Both sides are clearly drawn, and neither one is particularly inclined to take prisoners.  The fact that more heat than light is being generated in much of the discussion is absolutely true.  However, that does not mean there are not some very thought provoking and insightful articles being written.

For instance, my recent discussion of what I believe to be a false equivalence between race and sexual orientation drew some interesting responses.  Those who believe sexual orientation is rooted in one’s biology were naturally antagonistic.  However, an article recently appeared in the New Republic which affirms my assertion of false equivalence.  Interestingly, it is written by an openly gay man named Brandon Ambrosino.  It has apparently caused quite a stir in LGBT circles.  Allow me to share with you a quote from the article:

One of the reasons I think our activism is so insistent on sexual rigidity is because, in our push to make gay rights the new black rights, we’ve conflated the two issues.  The result is that we’ve decided that skin color is the same thing as sexual behavior.  I don’t think this is true.  When we conflate race and sexuality, we overlook how fluid we are learning our sexualities truly are.  To say it rather crassly: I’ve convinced a few men to try out my sexuality, but I’ve never managed to get them to try on my skin color.  In other words, one’s sexuality isn’t something as biologically determined as race.  Many people do feel as if their sexuality is something they were born with, and I have no reason to disbelieve the.  But as I and other queer persons will readily confirm, there are other factors informing our sexualities than simply our genetic codes.

So, here is a gay man arguing that his sexual orientation is a choice.  And did you notice he  describes “how fluid we are learning our sexualities truly are”?  Race is not fluid.  It is fixed.  If expressions of sexuality are, indeed, fluid, it is because they are a choice and not an immutable matter.  Clearly, there is dissension within gay ranks concerning this matter.

Another fascinating article on the subject of sexual orientation was recently brought to my attention. The title of the piece is, interestingly and challengingly enough, Against Heterosexuality.  It was written by a man who apparently plans on entering the Roman Catholic priesthood, and his theological biases are clear.  However, while rather lengthy and somewhat dense, the author, Michael W. Hannon, proffers a challenging counter-point to conventional wisdom about our views of sexuality.  In particular, he challenges categorizing orientations sexually as being hetero or homo sexual.

Hannon argues such categories are relatively modern, artificial constructs that have clouded discussion of sexuality on both sides of the issue.  His position is that defining heterosexuality as normal, and homosexuality as abnormal, has left the impression heterosexuality is inherently right and homosexuality wrong.  He makes the point that the term heterosexual in its original usage carried a negative connotation:

But another prominent meaning of the term around the time of its invention, including its first recorded usage in English in 1892, continues to inform our warped conception of human sexuality, even though this secondary definition has since fallen out of fashion. In its alternative definition, the word designated not “normal-sex,” but rather a different brand of deviant sex, like its homosexual counterpart in its disregard for procreation but made distinct by the typical object of its lustful inclinations.

In other words, being “straight” doesn’t mean one is going to express his/her sexuality in ways that are within Biblical bounds.  “Straight” expressions of sexuality can involve pre-marital and extra-marital sex, both of which may be heterosexual, but are just as forbidden as homosexuality.  The idea that heterosexual sex is inherently “righter” than homosexual is fraught with dangers.  

Hannon argues that we are sexual beings who make choices in regard to how we express that sexuality.  He cites the ongoing ridiculous fluidity of sexual orientation categorization (we have gone from merely straight and gay to LGBTI, and seem to keep on adding letters to encompass new categories) as illustrative of the truth that sexual orientation is not inherent but chosen.

It is also true that ancient cultures, such as the Greek and Roman, which were notoriously promiscuous, did not recognize “gay” and “straight.”  Men and women chose to have sexual relations with the opposite sex or the same sex and those choices were just that – choices.

An observation made by Hannon really grabbed my attention.  I believe it is worthy of our consideration as we look at the issue of sexual orientation from a, hopefully, Biblical perspective.

The Bible never called homosexuality an abomination.  Nor could it have, for as we have seen, Leviticus predates any conception of sexual orientation by a couple of millennia at least.  What the Scriptures condemn is sodomy, regardless of who commits it or why.  And yet, as I have argued throughout, in our own day homosexuality deserves the abominable label, and heterosexuality does too. 

Deviant sexual expression is a choice, whether that expression occurs in a homosexual or heterosexual context.  The Bible never talks of sexual expression in terms of orientation.  It always speaks of it in terms of action.  Sodomy is a choice; so is adultery.  While great weight is given today to inclination, Scripture regulates on the basis, not of one’s sexual inclinations whether hetero or homo sexual, but rather on how one actually expresses him or herself sexually.  Categorizing people according to orientation (read inclination) totally disregards the Biblical teaching on sexuality.  We are ultimately judged by our actions, not our inclinations.  This approach makes a discussion of sexual expression much simpler and clearer and, I believe, more Biblical. 

There is one last piece I read recently I would like to bring to your attention.  It deals with the issue of gay adoption.  Here, in part, is what the author, Rivka Edelman, writes as she laments the specter of gay adoption.  She is writing in response to a New York Times article celebrating the adoption, by two gay men, of a baby born to a surrogate mother:

Human rights violations against women and children will be framed as LGBT civil rights. And anyone that suggests that maybe people do not have rights to other people’s body or organs is a hater, a bigot, and a homophobe.

Well, that dog doesn’t hunt.  I grew up in a gay household and I know the arguments better than I know the pledge of allegiance.  So save it.  All of it – the missives, the threats.  Don’t prove my point to people about loving the gay community.  They will turn and tear their own to shreds in a heartbeat.  Because the fragile narrative has to be protected at all costs.  Family is a photo op.  And children are props. 

Rivka’s heartbreaking cry against gay adoption is illustrative of the inevitable consequences of opening the Pandora’s Box of so-called “gay rights.”  Once we start down that path, legally and logically doors open that many never anticipated.  And when we peek through those doors, what we see sickens us.  

I hope these additional perspectives will be helpful.  Hyperlinks to the articles cited are provided within my article.  Simply hover your mouse over the highlighted word with the control key pressed down, then click.  It should take you to the appropriate site.

Blessings…

Dan Rouse