New “Noah” Movie attacks Christian Faith with gnostic heresies, Jewish sorcery April 7, 2014
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare.trackback
I have little use for anything Hollywood puts on the big screen anymore. The vast majority of it is either outward leftist agitprop or comic book pulp. So I never had much interest in seeing this Noah movie. But I was still pretty surprised that it got a number of positive reviews from Catholic and other Christian reviewers. I read a few of those reviews and came away feeling the reviewers were really bending over backwards to support something unsupportable. I also came away thinking…….there is something really, really wrong with this movie.
Well, a local priest shared with me over the weekend what the problem is – the movie is a veritable evangelization piece for gnostic heresies and Jewish Kaballah sorcery (black magic), packaged as entertainment. One theologian just absolutely lambasted positive Christian reviewers, including some protestant theologians, for failing to pick up on the extremely overt gnostic and kabbalist (word creation?) elements.
In brief, this movie is a very clever attempt at undermining the faith of potentially millions of viewers by performing a massive misdirect, getting people to think (and attempt to explain away) the movie as being based on the Christian Bible, when it in fact derives its source material from gnosticism and kaballist heresies. For those that don’t know, Kaballah is basically Jewish black magic, and its enjoyed quite a resurgence of late. Gnosticism was an early and very persistent heresy of Christianity, which posited that the material (or flesh) was bad, and that the “spirit” was good. Gnostics – who had an infinite variety – viewed the Christian God as a low-level deity that didn’t understand the spiritual world at all, and mired man in corrupting flesh out of spite. Since the flesh doesn’t matter, gnostics and derived heresies (Manicheanism, the Cathars, new age) generally develop really wacked out sexual immoralities, in addition to having a completely, totally anti-Christian vision of theology and the nature of God.
The kabbalist and gnostic aspects of the film are apparently constant throughout and overpowering. And the creator of this Noah film has already made a film about Kaballah, so he is steeped in these errors (even though he professes to be an atheist). Starting with an early scene depicting Adam and Eve, things start off wrong and get worse fast. The film shows Adam and Eve as being pure spirit initially, and the serpent is actually the goddess “Sophia” coming to bring them true spiritual wisdom. When they listen to the serpent “(which, in gnosticism, was the right thing to do), the bad, judgmental, spiteful, hateful material “god” (our God) casts them out of the Garden and punishes them with material flesh (for a weak, lower level deity, God sure seems to have a lot of power) because Adam and Eve gained some spiritual knowledge superior to his own.
Some of the other, more egregious problems (many spoilers, but you weren’t going to see it anyways):
- the film shows “fallen angels” (that is, demons) being “saved” and allowed to ascend to Heaven or whatever for their help in wiping out humanity. These are the weird “rock people” that have so confused reviewers.
- the evil material “god” in this film does not desire any humanity to survive, he actually wants the complete destruction of all human life, including Noah and his family. Because, environmentalism.
- And, yes, the entire film screens like a masturbatory fantasy of a true die hard environmentalist zealout, where “nature” is pristine and good and man is irredeemably bad.
- There is a scene where Noah, carrying out the bad, materialist “god’s” wishes, goes to kill his grandchildren and is seen threatening them with a knife. This scene was most disturbing to some people I met who had unfortunately seen the movie.
- Noah finally overcomes the will of the bad god by embracing the “wisdom” of the serpent, sparing his grandchildren and carrying on human life. There is a scene that makes this plain.
There are numerous other scandals and heresies, but you get the point.
As this theologian notes, the biggest scandal is that so many Christians fell for this garbage and tried to find Christian interpretations for all these weird, inexplicable elements, which were actually gnostic heresies or kaballist fantasies:
The scandal is this: of all the Christian leaders who went to great lengths to endorse this movie (for whatever reasons: “it’s a conversation starter,” “at least Hollywood is doing something on the Bible,” etc.), and all of the Christian leaders who panned it for “not following the Bible”…
Not one of them could identify a blatantly Gnostic subversion of the biblical story when it was right in front of their faces.
I believe Aronofsky did it as an experiment to make fools of us: “You are so ignorant that I can put Noah (granted, it’s Russell Crowe!) up on the big screen and portray him literally as the ‘seed of the Serpent’ and you all will watch my studio’s screening and endorse it.”
He’s having quite the laugh. And shame on everyone who bought it.
Another reviewer notes that the producer, Darren Aronofsky, seems to have made this film in an attempt to lure souls away from the Faith or to at least corrupt their understanding of it. It is thus blasphemous and sinister.
I think we Christians are going to have to get over being liked or “relevant” to the self-anointed elites in this culture. We can and must pray and work for their conversion, but engaging in debates on their terms is at this point a lost cause. Falling over backwards to explain away blatantly problematic films like this seems a losing proposition. I think we need to assert our rights and the Truth Christ has revealed more boldly and stridently, and cease seeking accommodation with those whose hatred of Christianity is most visible.
Oh, but what did the USCCB think? They gave a rather contradictory review, noting problems, but never saying outright “avoid this film at all costs.” The reviewer also failed to pick up on the deliberately dangerous, heretical elements. They basically say kids shouldn’t see it, but adults might find some value in it. I can’t imagine what that would be.
Finally, I have to note how gnosticism informs and undergirds the entire “new age” false religion. Gnosticism was always a religion of self-anointed elites, the same kind of people who dominate our society today. It was also a religion that posited secret, hidden knowledge as the key to salvation. Thus, the “elect” were a tiny, self-absorbed set. Correlations to new age should be clear, as new age encourages turning inward and finding “the god within.” It is a scandal of massive proportions that many religious, especially female, have fallen into this literal worship of self and serve as eager acolytes to confused, spiritually-starved Catholics, especially women of a certain age. It was one such religious giving a new age “Lenten retreat” in the Dallas Diocese that sparked the creation of this blog.
I didn’t look around to see if there were problematic retreats given this year. Perhaps there were, but our involvement in parishes with the Novus Ordo Mass is essentially over, so I haven’t had the motivation to look.
To the extent this movie might encourage some already profoundly confused Catholics who have fallen into new age practices to fall still further, it is especially dangerous. But overall, Catholics should never willingly expose themselves to heresy. So, stay away from this movie. I have seen so far nothing to recommend it to the faithful Catholic.
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
Nomad vegans dealing with a flood… Had nothing to do with Noah or God…
I cannot tell you how wrong you are about this film — and how wrong Brian Mattson is. I saw it last week, and as a Catholic, I can say it is a powerful and moving experience. There is absolutely nothing Gnostic or heretical about it. Just the opposite – it beautifully echoes Christian and Jewish themes about man’s sinfulness and God’s mercy more strongly than I have come across in any film for a long time.
A fine Christian (Eastern Orthodox) film critic, Peter Chattaway, has thoroughly refuted this Gnostic nonsense here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/04/no-noah-is-not-gnostic-say-that-ten-times-fast.html
He has made every one of the points I want to make. He also links to several interviews (or maybe just one long interview) he did with the director and screenwriter. I don’t have time to go back and find the links, but they are very enlightening. One of the things that Aronofsky stressed is that Noah’s dilemma is a means of dramatizing the choice between justice and mercy — even as it comes to God. Definitely not a choice between Gnostic god – snake.
Some major SPOILERS AHEAD.
The motivation behind Noah’s dilemma is not at all like Dr. Mattson portrays, and has nothing to do with Gnostic conceptions of God, or modern environmentalists against human exceptionalism. (Noah and other believing characters in the film state on several occasions that man is made in the image of God, something not true of the animals).
Noah’s thought as expressed in the film is that humans are sinful for disobeying God in the garden, while the animals are innocent. Noah becomes obsessed with man’s sinful nature, which he sees himself as sharing. He comes to feel that their mission was only to get the animals through the flood in the ark, then die off, in order to fulfill God’s justice.
This is where the dilemma comes from when he learned his seemingly barren daughter-in-law is pregnant. Justice seems to enjoin he should kill the child if it’s a girl so humanity can’t reproduce. In the end, he can’t do it because of his love for his grandchildren (twin girls). Just as in regard to strict justice, humanity deserves to die because of sin, but God, out of love for his creation, mercifully allows them to live. This and the freedom of human beings to choose
the good, is stressed. There is a conversation between Noah and his daughter-in-law late in the movie that makes this point beautifully.
The theme of caring for the environment is there because it’s there in Genesis 1-2 if you bother to read it carefully. The characters interpret it in different ways, but they are always aware that it has to do with a divine command — from God, not from Gaia!
There is so much more that could be said here, but I don’t have time to say it. Just beware of criticizing a film you haven’t seen, especially when Christian critics are so divided.
This is not to say that an agnostic Jewish filmmaker is going to get all of theology right according to Catholic teaching. But please don’t get involved in spreading lies about him and his intentions.
“This is not to say that an agnostic Jewish filmmaker is going to get all of theology right according to Catholic teaching. But please don’t get involved in spreading lies about him and his intentions.”
I thought you said there was nothing heretical about it? If you can’t tell, Lori comes from the Church of Nice, Mark Shea, Fr. Barron, patheos crowd.
Stoney: Strictly speaking, the movie doesn’t contain any heresy, since its makers aren’t Catholics or even Christians, and in order to be a heretic, you have to be a Catholic first, and depart from fundamental doctrine in some serious way. As for the actual theological ideas, I have yet to hear +any serious person who actually saw the movie give a coherent account of one idea in the movie that departs from a basic truth about God. Dr. Mattson certainly did not.
The first and most basic idea about Gnosticism is that creation and the Creator God are evil for bringing about a world of matter and trapping souls in matter (bodies). Procreation is frowned on. The film in the end celebrates the goodness of creation and rejoices over the birth of children. That Dr. Mattson couldn’t get that straight is astonishing.
What’s the alternative to the Church of Nice, btw? The Church of Not so Nice? Sounds like a good name for it to me.
I never accused the filmmaker of being a formal heretic. But that doesn’t mean someone can’t promote beliefs such as Gnosticism that are heresies. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the PASTORAL CHARITY OF THE COUNCIL (!!) today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.
The opposite of the Church of Nice is the Church Militant.
The opposite of the Church of Nice is the Church Militant.
No, it is not. I belong to the Church Militant just as you do. All baptized Christians belong to the Church Militant. It is the Church of ChurchMilitantTV that tries to make these divisions. This is dangerous and wrong. ChurchMilitantTV is for very that very reason the opposite of what its name proclaims.
Thanks for proving my point, Lori. Like Shea, I see on your blog you are also promoting the renowned homosexual Bernardin and his destructive seamless garment teachings. How very church of nice.
Really Stoney? Way to win folks over…
Lori, my apologies on behalf of this commenter. This reminds me of an incident I witnessed in the parish hall this past Lord’s Day. I think we lost a potential parishioner due to the ill chosen words of another long time parishioner.
Folks, we need to do better than this if we are to be Christ’s hands and feet, as it were.
Thanks.
Just giving the readers an idea of where she is coming from, dumbox. Read her comments below attacking Barbara Nicolosi. Btw, have you ever spent time reading Shea’s blog or facebook? here’s what he has to say about you: “bed-wetting, butt-hurt church-hating reactionary who likes to crap his pants”. Sure, we are to love our enemies but we don’t have to like them.
He said that about me? Or discipleofthedumbox?
I would just ask for those who feel such a powerful need to defend this film (not you, DotDO)……what on earth is so overwhelmingly awesome about it that drives such passionate criticism of the critics? Why should a faithful Catholic see this movie?
I have spoken to people who saw the movie and they were MORTIFIED. And scandalized. It was terrible. And there are elements that are very dangerous – the entire “serpent” motif is an overt attack on Christianity and the entire theology of sin, obedience, salvation, redemption, etc.
But the main point is, what on earth is so great about this film to necessitate such enthusiastic defense?
Do be careful not to participate in similar behaviors or worse to become a party to the sin of detraction is all I am saying. I care not what Shea or others have to say about me. Whether praise or criticism, deserved or undeserved, give glory to God.
I’m much more offended if it’s directed at DotDO than at me. That’s just sad.
I thought Shea had had an epiphany and was now going to be a man of virtue?
Sorry, did not mean to imply that Shea’s rants were explicitly directed at dotdumbox, but it is the way he likes to caricature anyone with a traditional leaning or who dares to criticize the pope. Yes, you’re right about detraction (mea culpa), but Shea wields quite a heavy influence over the other Catholic bloggers at Patheos and their readers. He is a professional writer, and is very skilled at ginning up anti-Traditional hatred. I’ve seen it spill out into the Catholic blogosphere. And no, he hasn’t reformed his ways.
He is also defending SDG’s positive review of Noah at all costs, because they are in the same tribe (it’s been humorous watching him bend over backwards to do so). That might partially explain why so many Catholics, at least over at Patheos, are following his cue and promoting Noah.
I was not surprised to find a, in my judgment, milquetoast approach to this sort of thing at the PP: http://www.thepersonalistproject.org/comments/everybodys_a_critic
Well, that makes more sense…
“Cause all the other reviews I’ve read have been scrambling for interpretations. scratching their heads.
Dr. Mattson’s blog is very interesting.He has a few follow-ups of the “Noah” review, reassuring the ordinary viewer that no, they’re not stupid for not seeing that, but real theologians missed the boat, as it were.
He would make a great Catholic, so let’s pray.
Thanks for the analysis. Steven D (can’t remember his name) gave a positive review on National Register. I don’t really like his reviews. It’s like he finds something good about every movie. (At least that’s how it looks to me.)
No, that’s the temptation. First of all, if reviewers give relentlessly negative reviews the studios will move to blackball them, if possible. They certainly won’t be invited to any pre-release screenings. Secondly, there is a great temptation to try to come to terms with the culture as is, to find the “good” in it. I’m not as sure why that is, it seems partly psychological, partly tactical, but I think it is wholly ineffective and ultimately counterproductive. Engagement with the culture has been tried for decades, and shown to be a great failure. We don’t win cultural esteem and “friends” by bending over backwards to find good in it. The people who do so only make the Church look weak and ineffectual, something to be mollified by empty gestures and generally ignored.
And, in instances like this, where it appears a deliberate attempt has been made to confuse and mislead the faithful, possibly causing them to enter into a path that will cause them to fall away, defending such an effort is scandalous and pitiful. But that’s where we’re at today.
Greydanus, I believe. I’ve read one of his reviews concerning the film. He has a couple of them at least. I found the review which I read to be rather even-handed.
Me personally, I have an issue with the fact that an atheist had a rather large hand in bringing this film to the big screen. Red flag for me right there. I don’t know about you…
I agree with you about SDG, I just don’t trust his judgement. When it comes to religious themed movies, you can count on Barbara Nicolosi to give an honest review and she doesn’t cut any slack on Noah.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/churchofthemasses/
Barbara violently ripped the film even before she had seen it (in an interview on Relevant Radio). Not very professional behavior for a film critic. Plus her review is little more than a hysterical incoherent rant. I say that with sorrow, because I know her personally. I prefer to read Steven Greydanus; he always keeps his cool.
Actually, Lori, I did not violently rip the film before I had seen it. I violenetly ripped it after I had seen it. Before I saw it, I commented mainly on the controversy that was being ginned up to support the film, and which it is now obvious was deliberately manufactured to cover what the studio knew was a very bad film. I was clear in every interview before I saw the film that I had not seen it, and my comments were always directed towards what Brian Godawa had found in the screenplay, and also the reactions of people who were being handpicked for the test screenings.
But regardless, now that the film has gotten past its opening weekend curousity, it has dropped like a stone as some of us predicted it would. Box office reports indicate that it will not break even. The reason it has dropped like a stone is that it has a sloppy story full of holes, an unsympathetic main character, earnest on-the-nose dialogue, wooden performances, an annoying over-the-top score, and many cheesy effects. It isn’t a beautiful film if beauty has any real nature as we Christians are supposed to believe it does.
As I noted in my post-screening ripping review, I could not take seriously any of the hodge-pode of spiritual stuff flying around in the movie because the storytelling craft was so bad. Also, I have been in enough story meetings in Hollywood to know that the stuff that carries the day is very often some idiot who makes more money saying something like, “Hey, you know what woudl be really cool? How about if we have some kind of weird ritual where people get wrapped in the snake skin!?!” And then everybody would whoop and snort at how that will blow the minds of certain traditional (read Neanderthal) people out there in movie land and so the wacko stuff gets put in for no more reasoning than that.
You may not see that the story is sloppy – which would be surprising to me in light of the education some of us at Act One labored to give you – but that does not change the fact that the story is sloppy and full of holes. For some reason, you have decided to overlook that huge problem in the movie. As have other Christians, which, yes, puts me in a ripping mood.
Obviously there is a whole bunch going on behind the scenes in this debate.
As far as I’m concerned, Hollywood is a den of such gross iniquity whose entire existence is founded on prevarication (that is, the selling of lies, manufactured lives of stars, etc) I see no need to support any of its product, some rare exceptions granted (For Greater Glory, The Passion of the Christ, etc). Hollywood has shown itself to be the inveterate enemy not just of the right practice of the Christian Faith, but of even natural virtue, and going back a century or more!, that I simply have no use for the whole sick scene. And I find bending over backwards to somehow “prove” to those who hate the Faith that we really are sophisticated and worthy of respect an exercise in pathetic futility. I haven’t been to a theater since the really poor There Be Dragons, and don’t plan on going back anytime soon.
Barbara, I certainly hate disagreeing with you, but I felt I must. I must apologize for writing about this elsewhere and not addressing you directly with it. That’s just the way the availability of time goes sometimes.
I didn’t have much time when writing my original comment, so I didn’t go into much detail. But I really had objections to your radio interview in which you said not just “this is supposedly what’s in the screenplay,” or “this movie is getting attention because of marketing”; you said point-blank “this film has a disrespectful treatment of God,” and you made this serious charge without having seen it. In fact, you stated that the move didn’t mention God, and when someone called in to point out that this wasn’t true, you just said, “well it’s not a respectful treatment of God,” once again, without having seen it. This is what I objected to and thought unprofessional.
As for the storytelling, I found it to be different than you claimed. I found the story compelling, and the motivations well developed. Much of Genesis is taken in a very literal sense, such as the actual ten generations from Adam, which you don’t see very often. I love how Noah and his family are always telling and talking about the stories of creation and the Fall as though they were their family history, which of course they were. Most important, the story very powerfully portrayed the reality of both sin and mercy.
The dialogue and some other aspects weren’t perfect. I didn’t particularly like the visuals of the “rock people” (Nephilim), and I thought the events in Tubal-Cains camp (city?) murky, dark and visually undeveloped; in fact, things went by so fast I hard a hard time understanding what was going on, and that is a misstep, for a very important story point happens there that begins to convince Noah that sinfulness is completely inescapable. Many, many people missed it, and I only began to understand what happened there from online discussions afterward. To me, Adam and Eve in their sinless state looked almost exactly like the aliens from Cocoon. I liked the idea about first parents being clothed in light (an idea that is not only Jewish but patristic), but the execution really killed that scene for me. There are other things I could criticize, so I don’t think it was a perfect film. But I’m not alone; there are plenty of thoughtful Catholic and other Christian critics who appreciate the film. It had a very powerful effect on me.
I think the biggest problem the film has experienced is that the ideas and imagery that Aronofsky chose to use are alien to most Christians. They mostly come from Jewish traditions: I Enoch, the Talmud, Kabbala, etc. He has talked about it a great deal in interviews; he isn’t trying to hide it, but it clearly hasn’t come through.
I don’t think that any of this discomforting imagery as devised in a script meeting as you say. I read an interview by the director where he mentioned that the snakeskin motif came from his reading of Jewish tradition that speculated that the “garments of animal skin” that Adam and Eve received from God after the Fall was the cast-off skin of the snake; so he decided to show the snake as shedding its own skin or “garment of light” and becoming wicked. So wearing the snakeskin is a way of claiming that lost innocence. The nature of the snake is rather ambiguous – is it just a snake or Satan in his fallen state? — but then it’s ambiguous in the bare text of Genesis as well. The full understanding of temptation by the devil became clear only later. Snakes are fertility symbols in many ancient cultures, and this plays a part in the final command of Noah to “go forth and multiply.”
In short, this is all just to “other” for most Christians, but I wouldn’t say that these decisions were made in disrespect of Christians, any more than they were in disrespect for the Jewish traditions Aronofsky comes from. You would probably say the images in a film shouldn’t need to be explained, and perhaps you’re right. But perhaps it’s partly due to we Christians forgetting our Jewish background. Many Jewish people respond well to the film, and particularly to the snakeskin armband, which they identify with the phylacteries. We can fault the film for all this. But it doesn’t change my opinion of it as a whole.
Well, this comment is already way too long. My apologies again for the way this criticism came.
P.S. It might have been useful if you had given some actual examples of the poor storytelling elements in your review so we’d know what they are. You were quite good in doing this in class. It might be good for comparison purposes, since other Christian reviewers who liked the film, like Chattaway and Greydanus, have certainly also been trained to understand what a good story is, and they seemed to think the story fine in this regard.
Barbara, I’m sorry, I wrote a very log reply to your comment, but for some reason it never showed up, just the P.S. I don’t know if it’s still being moderated or not. If the blog author reads this, please let me know. It took me an hour and a half to write, so if it’s still recoverable, I’d like to know.
It was in spam, I approved it. Very long comments get caught by the spam filter most of the time. I did not read the comment, so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. I’m out of time for today.
Tanta – There really isn’t a “Hollywood” in the sense that you speak. There are studios who are mainly controlled by multi-national corporations whose first interest is the bottom line. Then, there are lots of artists and professionals of every stripe, although most of the gatekeepers with access to money and celebrity are hard Left. There are some wonderful movies made every year, but most are not worth the time they take to watch because storytelling, as with all the arts in modernity, is sick right now. I don’t think that problem will correct itself without people like us trying to tell stories.
But I do not support movies that are ugly or stupid regardless of who made them. The big questionin the ‘Noah’ kerfufle is why so many religious people told us this movie was something good when it was not. I asked one guy on the inside of the movie promo business that this morning and he said, “The ususal stuff: money, flattery, wanting to be cool.”
I haven’t read too much of your stuff, but judging by your Noah review I’d say you are fighting a good fight there. I get the need to engage on some level. It’s not something I feel called to, but I appreciate that you do. But I don’t get this need on the part of those Christians who have fallen all over themselves to somehow justify this most recent disaster, Noah.
As for how many good movies are made nowadays, it’s all a matter of taste. There are a few, a very few.
And Hollywood is just an easy colloquialism for that system you describe.
Tantam, if you have a chance watch this presentation by Barbara at FUS, its worth your time. I agree with her philosophy that Christians, and especially Catholics need to make quality movies to effectively evangelize the secular world. It can’t be just a matter of “meaning well”.
Put the theological issues aside. How about its just a bad movie.
I have a friend who is not even Christian say it was awful. No plot, no point, and rock-people absurd.
Not surprising, it has a Metascore of only 67 and a User Score of a measly 5.4/10 on Metacritic.
Exactly.
So, why did people like Fr. Barron and Mr. Gredanus of the National Catholic Register fawn over it?
tantamergo, thank you for taking the time to find and post my comment.
Lori – I never said point-blank or otherwise “this film has a disrespectful treatment of God.” I don’t talk like that. Before you disagree with me, have the class to quote me correctly.
Barbara, I know I was citing only from memory. I went back and checked the broadcast (Drew Mariani’s show on March 24). I’ll admit I hadn’t quite remembered it correctly. But I think my point still stands. Only on a few occasions did you throw in an “apparently” or “from what I’ve heard.”
The call in question starts at about 37:00. The man indicates that there is reference to God in the film (he hadn’t seen it himself, and was going by the trailers). He was still wondering whether to see it. You acknowledged the point, but added that Mel Gibson had reverence for the Gospel story, but, in regard to Noah, that Noah receives revelation from God in “a crazy dream, and that “it is not a reverent telling,” and the movie’s priority was to provide a provocative and entertaining spectacle, and not “to make people brood really about the way God works in salvation history.” At no time did you hedge this around with “apparently” or any other words that would be appropriate for someone who hadn’t seen the film.
Funny, for me, the film did exactly that — it made me think much about God’s operation in salvation history. That, to my mind, made it a reverent telling. Before seeing the movie, I too thought a lot of it sounded crazy. I was able to make a real judgment only after seeing it. I concluded that it was extreme and crazy, but also reverent toward the material, because it was serious about the life-and-death issues involved, which was partly why it went to such extremes. (Isn’t that the thing that you always stress is good about Flannery O’Connor?) I can’t write any more without being put into spam purgatory again. But I have more here:
http://subcreators.com/blog/2014/04/09/noah-answering-the-flood-of-critics/
Correction: I mean that you threw in an “apparently” or similar words on a few occasions throughout the broadcast, but not in the answer I quoted.