My students = My teachers, my angels

“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 18:3-4 (NIV)

During previous readings of this verse, I’d been largely neutral and indifferent to it. Perhaps due to my lack of opportunity with interacting with children, I had no concept to build on. However during my past three months of interacting with the beloved Pri 1 & 2 children of Sembawang FSC’s Student Care, I have had a whole new insight to this verse. These three months of guiding them, I have only imparted mere academic knowledge, whereas what these angels have blessed me with, is far more precious.

Ying Rui is always very bold, maybe bordering on audacity. However, this stems from his very clear vision of what is right and wrong, what specific things need to be done. His confidence in this knowledge never wavers, doubt never creeps in. I have nicknamed him, the Superhero.

Every good superhero needs a good sidekick, and here comes in femme fatale Cheri. She possesses that same distinction between right and wrong, but as there’s Ying Rui to take on the main role of policing, she content to take a back seat most of the time. This assurance of one’s self-worth without envy of other’s limelight is such a gem.

Alyssa is an attention seeker, always looking to me. Although I’ve worried about her independence skills in the future as she matures, yet I’m also heartened at how comfortable she is with her dependency on those she respects and looks up to. All sense of pride does not exist in my dynamics with her.

In class, there’ll always be a cheeky one, and here comes Zhi Wei. Yes, he yet does not know how to prioritise his duties well, but he’s very capable of delighting himself when having to plough through these otherwise drab and mundane work. How many of us can claim not to harbor any bitterness and resentment towards whatever unfavourables life throws at us? Just add in a dash of discipline, and I’m sure he will be a great example to his younger sister En Qi.

Carlynn is the underdog counter-example.  Previously dismissed as sort of a hopeless case, she has made remarkable progress through sheer grit against all odds. Yes, academically, she definitely is still a far cry from the likes of the Superhero, but her receptivity of encouragement and help, coupled with this dogged perseverance at bettering herself, has shown me clearly what apostle Paul meant by “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith”.

The Beatitudes mentioned about “blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth”, and this is the quiet Yong Liang at the corner. Despite how much he needs help and attention, he always has the reticence not to vie for the little time there is to go around in each session, always preferring to labour through own efforts first. However do not mistake this for sloth or cowardice, as it is far from it. It is generousity that propels him to share precious time with the rest of the class, showing the virtue of serving others before self.

Quite similarly, Jo Yee demonstrates what it means to be patience and wait for the best timing. Despite having completed her work far faster than her seniors, she is never anxious or fretful to insist on being attended to immediately. She is very sharp at spotting the exact moment and best person to approach.

Lastly, I would like to conclude with Angel. I admit she is my personal favourite. I’m unable to really concretise an outstanding virtue of hers relative to the rest, not that she does not possess what the others have, just that in a lesser capacity. However, what distinguishes her from all the rest is, despite how I'd mentioned that she pales in comparison to them, she possesses a carefree attitude, she does not worry, akin to what Solomon mentioned. This is indeed what I’d needed to learn most, especially with the turn of other events that I have been encountering, and some more yet to come. She knows she has done her best in her work, and she leaves the rest to me to mark and guide.

I choose to look at this past three months as not a mere coincidence, but God having a divine hand in introducing them to me. As Matthew 20:16 stated, that the first shall be the last, and the last shall be the first. In their eyes, I may seem to be the teacher Ms Tan who's teaching them. However, in actual fact they are the angels from God sent to guide me along this rocky path for now. I am so grateful for what they have imparted me, without me needing ever to earn anything from them. Amen!

A Regal Covenant

Despite my busy schedule to complete my RCIA, I’ve still able to be on a recent drama binge, following the first three seasons of Once Upon a Time. As impatient as I am, I’d gone on to spoiler myself slightly about season four which is still midway in broadcast, through following its official and unofficial fansites.

I guess it is because I can relate to one of the characters, Regina Mills aka the Evil Queen, very much. I don’t think I’ve suffered as much as her, neither have I done as much mayhem as she had, and definitely I haven’t reformed as much as she has. However, the emotional turmoil she’s carrying is a similar one I share, though in lesser magnitude. From the show’s latest advancements, despite her character’s most sincere efforts at rehabilitation, the “happy ending” still eludes her, like a finishing line that keeps getting advanced. And currently, I feel like that very much.

Like her, I am not that miserable. I am definitely out of my dark ages, just like how she has dropped the “evil” adjective. I no longer covet what others have, in the previous envious way in which I wish they were deprived of their blessings. Thankfully three years ago I’d been shown the counter-example of how schadenfreude can destroy someone else, so I need not learn this terrible lesson personally. However, I really do get wistful and I wonder whether my past sins have been too grave. Absolution of them is one thing, but bearing of their consequences is a whole different matter. And sometimes I get very tired. I even get tempted to revert to my previous ways. The term “God’s will” sounds hollow at best, sarcastic or even vicious at worst.

However, today’s RCIA session about the sacraments gave me a better view of the light at the end of the tunnel, and it definitely isn’t an oncoming train. All of the sacraments are covenants, not transactions. They are about beliefs and promises, not rewards and outcomes. Regina made a promise to her stepson Henry to reform, and I've made a similar promise to God. Then I have a better idea and feel slightly refreshed. 

As  a fan I’ve grown to root for this character more and more, maybe somewhere, the Holy One is really getting more and more pleased with me, be it whatever plans lie ahead. And the mere upholding of the regal covenant itself is happiness enough that never ends. Amen!

Evil doesn't always look evil. Sometimes it's staring right at us and we don't even know it.

-- Regina, OUAT Season 1 Episode 16

I don't know how to love very well. I wasn't capable of it for a very long time. But I know, I remember... that if you hold on to someone too hard, that doesn't make them love you.

-- Regina Mills, OUAT Season 2 Episode 2

Evil isn't born, it's made. And so is good. If I were you, I'd consider creating a new destiny.

-- Regina, OUAT Season 3 Episode 20

Movie Mayhem with God Part 13: The same vulnerable Wolverine; two very different outcomes

Friends of mine may know that I’ve had the honour of winning an online competition to get the opportunity to interview Hugh Jackman face-to-face live in Singapore, when he came down in May to promote X-Men Days of Future Past. He was a very friendly star with no airs, and it was after the interview, that I felt curious enough to look for his other works, such as the Prestige.

During my retreat in CISC over the past week, while I was mulling over the concept of “mercy” in the Beatitudes, when I was suddenly reminded of two very different characters played by Mr Jackman, in two films which could not have stated the contrast better, what it means to accept mercy and what it means to deny mercy.

In The Prestige, Hugh Jackman’s Robert Angier is so consumed with Christian Bale’s Alfred Borden at having caused his girlfriend’s drowning accident, he practically devotes his entire life towards getting back at him. In the movie poster, the tag line states, “are you watching closely?” Sad to say, for their characters in the film, are so concentrated on watching as each other as adversaries closely, they completely lose sight of themselves. In the process of this relentless duel, they sacrifice their physical health, career, friends, loved ones, and eventually themselves. What was initially a healthy devotion to professionalism for their vocation of performing magic, veers off course till they’re so possessed by the notion that the other party has trumped them, they fail to treasure what they have till all was lost. By refusing to show mercy to each other, they were actually denying themselves of mercy. A conversation in the movie sums things up quite nicely.

Nikola Tesla: Mr. Angier, have you considered the cost of such a machine?

Robert Angier: Price is not an object.

Nikola Tesla: Perhaps not, but have you considered the ‘cost’?

Robert Angier: I'm not sure I follow.

Nikola Tesla: Go home. Forget this thing. I can recognize an obsession, no good will come of it.

Robert Angier: Why, haven't good come of your obsessions?

Nikola Tesla: Well, at first. But I followed them too long. I'm their slave... and one day they'll choose to destroy me.

Robert Angier: If you understand an obsession, then you know you won't change my mind.

Les Miserables is a well-known epic by Victor Hugo, which has been adapted into films and even a staple Broadway musical. Hugh Jackman plays the role of protagonist Jean Valjean in the most recent film adaptation in 2012. A friend always jokes that the story is essentially about the rest of the life an ex-convict who had stolen a loaf of bread. Well, I’d like to add she missed out the critical “redemption through mercy” part in the equation, which without it, would quite frankly render the entire story meaningless.

Having been inspired by a kind bishop, after his release from prison, Jean Valjean turns his life around as mayor of a small town. However, his old enemy, the fanatic police inspector Javert is convinced that a leopard never changes his spots, and he makes it his personal mission to “stalk” Valjean. In the midst of this, Jean Valjean adopts Cosette, daughter of Fantine (an ill-treated factory worker of his), as he feels responsible over her descent into prostitution. As he tries his best to protect and provide for Cosette throughout the rest of his life, all members are swept into the political turmoil in 1830s France.

At the finale of the film, Jean Valjean passes away content and peaceful, knowing he has done it utmost to uphold his promise to the bishop and Fantine. However, things are much bleaker for Javert, who unable to reconcile his devotion to the law with his realisation that sometimes lawful course is immoral, takes his own life.

The movie poster has the caption “Fight Dream Hope Love”, each representing the life mottos of the characters of Javert, Fantine, Valjean and Cosette respectively. Fantine’s courage in asking Valjean for mercy in taking care of her daughter, as well as Valjean’s willingness to grant mercy, accounts for the peace granted to Valjean and Fantine as the end of their days. Meanwhile, Javert’s obsessive stubbornness at denying others that much needed mercy, is precisely the factor which drives him to suicide as he is unable to forgive himself when he discerns the error of his past beliefs.

I’ll conclude this entry with a snapshot of the process towards and away from God, which I had gotten from the retreat. Both journeys start from the same point and their various “symptoms” at each stage may mirror and contrast their corresponding stage in the alternative journey.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Matthew 5:7 (NIV)

Movie Mayhem with God Part 12: Transcendence

Transcendence was another movie that I had wanted to write about when it had been on the screens in March this year, but I hadn’t been able to sort of my thoughts about it then though I was moved by it. Even though the movie wasn't fantastic (yes, Johnny Depp practically does most of his performance in a manner as if via Skype), the themes present in the movie are quite worth discussing. Now, I’ve finally been able to sift through it properly to write in a manner as coherent as I can.

A brief synopsis of it would be that scientist Dr Will Caster and his wife (a fellow scientist who also stands in to help him on PR duties), have been trying to invent this computer which is able to process human conscious, but at super human speed. They believe in the unlimited potential of the human consciousness, and how it can be used to do good. However, opponents of this idea, feel that they are literally trying to “play God”, and Will Caster gets assassinated by them during a presentation when he’s pitching the idea to both the scientific community as well as potential corporate sponsors. His grieving wife, out of an inability to accept his death, transplants his consciousness into the machine and then mayhem slowly ensues. Unfortunately no matter how hard I try to talk about this film, I’ll eventually spoiler the plot, so here goes…

The two main themes that struck me in this film, are the concept of “playing God”, and the concept of “being human”. Let’s start with “playing God”. “Playing God” suggests that the party in question, firstly over-estimated his or her abilities to handle something (the layman phrase for it is “you don’t know what you’re in store for” in the negative sense), and is acting out of sheer self-interest and nothing else. During the film, after Will Caster’s death, his wife impulsively uploads his consciousness in the computer system, in a way “resurrecting” him. Through the film, the resurrected Will Caster does increasingly astounding yet disturbing things, unsettling former colleagues, friends and eventually even his own wife.

Both acts on surface may seem to be “playing God” in a sense, but eventually as the plot unfolds, we see that only one act is “playing God” in the strict sense. Will Caster’s wife’s actions are the confirmed act of playing God. Her choice of “resurrecting” him to life, is solely out of her grief of losing him forever. She had not contemplated whether it was in accordance to Will’s wishes, or of anyone else’s, as well as the consequences of this action, apart from the fact that she’d be able to “keep him with her forever” in a sense. This is evidenced in the scene where she and a common friend were grieving and going to shut down the machine and leave. The friend encourages her to end the “experiment” and she is about to. However when the grief gets the better of her, she abruptly changes her mind and decides to persist.

Meanwhile, for the case of the resurrected Will Caster, his decisions and “actions” (if they can be deemed as such, since he is merely a “machine” in the strict sense) increasingly defy the understanding of everyone, thus scaring them. However through his final act of choosing to die, he proved himself to be who he was and is all along, merely that his abilities have been heightened and expanded beyond what anyone else in the film can grasp. So in an oxymoronic way, he resurrects the love and trust between him and his wife through dying. Dying is inevitable for human beings. However, it is through the very act of willingness to die, that Will Caster proves he is no longer “God” in the cruel sense of that of a mere machine, but is a human being who has the ability to love, made in the image of God.

On the movie poster, the advertisement line for the film reads “Yesterday, Dr. Will Caster was only human”. It is actually true, but not just in the conventional train of logic. Without having watched the film, just based on what we think we know of the film from the trailer, we tend to hastily jump into conclusion that that the “transcendence” of Will Caster is of his superhuman abilities. However the other “transcendence” of Will Caster, is of the grand vision he has for the future and the love for his wife, such that eventually when everyone else loses faith in him, he is willing to die again, in order to keep that vision and love alive. Hmm, I’d play with the movie poster line a bit. “Yesterday Dr. Will Caster was only human, he still is human, and yet he is not just human!”

Before I end this blog entry, I’d like to bring up this dear Bible verse which is my current motto in my walk with God, as well as the two famous new covenant commandments which appear in as many as three of the four Gospels of Christ. It is of no sheer coincidence that all these four verses are quoted directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself.

Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Matthew 10:39 (NIV)

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

Mark 10:28-31 (NIV)

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

Luke 10:25-38 (NIV)

Thirst no more with the water of life

A reply that I used frequently nowadays in response to whether I’m happy or not, is the statement that “I’ll live”. It isn’t a mere statement of resignation, a defeatist throwing-up of arms in a “I give up” manner. Despite the common advice of my fellow believers who are seniors, to “count my blessings”, I’ve discovered that this method doesn’t work well for me due to my “operating system”.  This stems from the indeed, I may have 30% of my cup filled whilst others may have a pittance of 10%, but it is also fairly easy for me to find another person I know who has been blessed with maybe a 80% full cup. So I’ve discarded the “measurement and counting” altogether, and decided to rejoice that there is water in the cup in the first place. And the word I’ll examine today is “live”, looking at its Biblical roots in its Chinese pictograph characters.

Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.

John 4:13-14 (NIV)

This verse, coming out from Jesus’ very own mouth, draws the association of life with water and thirst. The Chinese character for “live” or “life” is “活”. This pictograph consists of two parts. The left which consists of three vertically stacked strokes which look like water droplets, is an abbreviation of the word “水”, which is water. Meanwhile, right portion “舌” in isolation, means tongue. Taken in this context, looks like the Chinese may have been having that verse in mind, when they were coming up with designing the pictograph to symbolise life, as when one drinks from the holy water of the Trinity, one thirsts no more and gets eternal life.

Another question one may pose, why three droplets of water, not one or two, or more? Apart from the historical roots of pictograph abbreviation of the Chinese language (the character of the word water “水” consist of three portions, thus when the Chinese were designing its abbreviation, it was natural to have used three droplets), please allow me to induce a Biblical context into it.

The Christian concept of God, is a tripartite one, commonly known as the holy Trinity. They consist of God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It may be a sheer coincidence, but it is wonderful that the abbreviation of the word 水‘s three droplets is able to make provision for each member of the Holy Trinity. Indeed with all three members of the Holy Trinity, believers need not thirst anymore. Rejoice that there is water, amen!

Letter of Faith

Was writing a series of meditative reflections to share with an old friend who has just been introduced to the faith, when I was granted another glimpse God’s theological concepts lurking within specifically the Chinese language. I’ve mentioned another such example briefly in an earlier post, Movie Mayhem, analysing the movie The Last Swordman, dissecting the pictographic meaning behind the character 义.

The Chinese translation for the word “faith” is 信仰, literally meaning “belief to the extent of awe”, the first character 信being the symbol for belief, and the second character 仰 being the symbol for prostrating or bending till one topples over. Today, I’ll examine specifically the first character 信.

The Chinese language is a complex system derived from a series of pictographs, and in fact it is the last pictograph-derived language that is still in common use. Each pictograph is actually made up of combinations of different components or abbreviations of other pictographs, to develop another symbol which captures the essence of the new word. In the word 信, the left part is actually an abbreviation of the word 人, which is human being. Meanwhile, right portion 言 in isolation, means speech.

A common concept in theology is about how we human beings are unique in the aspect of being created in the image of God. This is stated very clearly in the first book in the Bible.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Genesis 1:26 (NIV)

If one uses deductive logic to interpret the literal pictographic meaning of the word信, you could take it to mean “the speech of human being”. It is by no coincidence that in the Chinese language, when people say that they believe someone or some concept, they use the two characters 相信, the first character being a symbol for the adverb “mutually”, thus the term相信meaning that there is mutual belief and understanding between two parties who regard each other respectfully. However, pardon me for having digressed a bit.

Thus, one could go onto further deduce that if a person wants to showcase his faith to God, he or she must conduct himself or herself in all mannerisms befitting that of a human being, which is a creature in God’s image. This would include the person’s thoughts, which are then translated into speech and later action.

As to what exact code of conduct to follow that would befit a believer, the relativity of the context of situation and personality often interferes, making some argue that about the validity of this concept in the first place. However, in view of two verses, then maybe the relativity of the concept is not so bothersome afterall, as there is still a rock-solid consistency present.

“If you love me, keep my commands”

John 14:15 (NIV)

Next then, clearly stated in as many as three of the four gospels (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:27), the commands are clear stated and defined by Jesus earlier.

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Thus, in whatever situation we face as believers when in doubt, we should conduct ourselves according to the answers we have of “how would God want me to love Him in this case” and “how would God want me to love myself as well as others in this case”.

During an earlier period of my faith journey, a very regular grouse I had against God was about how much I failed at understanding Him and His plans. It is after grasping the enormity of what it means to be created in His image, I dare not hold this against Him again. After all, I sometimes don’t even understand myself that well. Along the same train of thought, it is only when I am fully able to comprehend myself and every other human being in the world, then maybe, will I gain full realisation of God’s character.

Movie Mayhem with God Part 11: Noah

The next movie I’m going to take on is going to be a highly provocative one, and I foresee getting lashings from some. Noah was shown during this March, with a respectable box office, but drawing a very mixed reception, especially within the Christian circle. It doesn’t help that the director Darren Aronofsky is an avowed atheist, making this a definite recipe for controversy. I had actually meant to write this right after watching the film, but was worried about how I could take on the balancing act, postponing this blog entry till only now. I’ll start by detailing my thought processes which led me to eventually decide to watch the movie, and my take on the movie itself.

Before the movie’s screening, there had already been quite a lot of hoo-haa, with calls by Christians to boycott the movie. Despite also harbouring fears of what the movie would depict, I eventually decided to go ahead and view it for myself. In my earlier walk as a believer, my fellow Christian mates had always advised me to steer clear from all stuff controversial to Christianity. Under this topics included philosophy, readings on other faiths, even taiji and wuxia! Now as a slightly more mature and assured Christian, I’ve dared to assert that staying faithful to God does not necessarily imply shunning all these, and they can be actually reconciled to the Christian faith. I exercise taiji at least once a week, and to me it is merely a form of physical exercise to enhance one’s blood circulation and breathing patterns, with the meaning of “yin yang” merely being “inhale exhale”. During my recent RCIA session, the Father from the church mentioned that other faiths are partial revelations of God’s truth, thus reaffirming my decision to continue reading books on them, just that I take care to look out for the elements of their teachings which parallel what the Bible states. I know some believers may dispute my methods, saying that this form of engagement may lead to spiritual chaos. However, here I’ll counter by saying ignorance is definitely no way to overcome fear either, as it is akin to an ostrich mentality, which I consider worse for myself.

It is with this same train of logic in mind that I finally decided to go ahead and watch the film. There’s some arguments put forth by other Christians on how un-Biblical it is. The examples they have stated are the blatantly pro-green message implying that Noah’s family were vegans, and the depiction of fallen angels turned stone monsters helping Noah build the ark. Personally I think these two points of contention are really juvenile. With regard to the vegan message, I’ll just shrug and say, the Bible never said they ate meat either, so there you have the ambiguity for narration. Darren Aronofsky simply wants to encourage us to go vegan, each to his own then. The stone giants argument is slightly more difficult to refute and resolve, though I’ll also use the same sequence of logic, saying that there was no mention of the exact way of manpower deployment of labour for construction work of the ark. We regular consumers of popular culture should be well aware that this part of narration helps create a wonderful opportunity for the production team to add in loads of actions sequences with 3D effects and thus is really a very market-related factor. I’d rather define these two areas as more Biblical-neutral, pardon me for the concoction of this hideous term. As for another major issue, that of God being eerily absent in the film, I'll speak in the film's defense, saying that the terms Creator comes up frequently enough, that being one of the many names God takes on.

However, if there are un-Biblical or even anti-Biblical themes in the film, I’d readily admit that there indeed are. Two major ones in fact, though surprisingly I’ve never seen them being mentioned in any articles pertaining to the film. First is the depiction of Noah’s emotional turmoil, climaxing with his inability to kill his grandchild. The early narration of Noah’s struggle was originally very relatable and touching for me, being a very realistic portrayal. I mean, definitely if God announced impending doom for the entire world with the sole exception of your family, one would at least feel slightly disturbed, no matter how much one doesn’t get along that well with the rest of the fallen world. Even mid-way when Noah goes on to misunderstand God’s message, thinking the “destroying of fallen mankind” implies that even his family not to be spared, it is a very convincing depiction. Many believers do not have the ability to comprehend the logic behind God’s commands, and read His motives off-key, though their actions carried out may still be in line with His orders,  I myself being admittedly one of them. The fact that in the film, Noah is humble enough to classify his family and himself to be fallen and sinful, actually proves how much of a believer he is, worthy to be chosen for the task. This brings up the famous verse by Paul in Romans, about how all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is just that the devil played on Noah’s misinterpretation of God’s commands to lead him into spiritual confusion, as shown by his mistaken decision to forbid Shem from having a child with his wife.

However, I look upon the narrative sequence of the birth of the grandchild onwards to be openly contentious. If you watch it carefully, you’ll be able to see how this parallels and then perverts the Abraham sacrificing Issac test in Genesis. If we lay aside historical accuracy (after all biblically, we really don’t know exactly when Noah’s grandchildren were born, thus giving the director the chance for freedom of expression), I think the director purposely wrote this into the script to reflect his own views towards God, of how he is simply unable to accept a God who can command you to commit deeds out of a mere whim to assess your faith. Thus the actual Biblical character under attack is the Abraham, not Noah.

This is further evidenced by the depiction of the character of Ham, Noah’s second son in the film, which is a vivid magnifier of the director’s train of thoughts in relation to this. Perhaps, it is a “blessing” to the director that the Bible is generally silent on the nature of Noah’s sons, which gave him a prime opportunity of free rein over how he could choose to sculpt this character. Ham starts out alright, being the typical teenager he is, anxious about his impending adulthood, slightly envious of his brother’s blossoming romance with his future sister-in-law. Thus when news of the doomsday is confirmed, he naturally worries that he wouldn’t be able to enjoy this blessing now that practically all other women apart from his mother and future sister-in-law are not going to survive. He tries to go on a desperate search for a suitable wife, finds a girl he fancies enough, but yet she gets abandoned to death by Noah. Noah’s character development by that point in the film has missed the mark, with the character thinking that mankind must die as in really ALL mankind. This part is outright un-Biblical as it is very clearly specified in the Genesis 6:18 & 7:13 that Shem, Ham, Japeth, their wives and all family members were readily allowed in the ark. Midway in the film, as an act of rebellion and spite against Noah, Ham even sneaks the villain Tubal-Cain into the ark, and after things nearly go out of hand, he murders Tubal-Cain, with Tubal-Cain pronouncing something akin to a curse on him. During the grandchild dilemma, Ham adopts a highly cynical bystander attitude, and the film concludes with Ham’s decision to leave the family and go on his own, when he sees the resolve of Noah to kills the grandchild crumble, while Noah goes on to bless and ordain Shem’s family. Nevertheless, I’d still advise fellow believers to look out for the character of Ham when watching the film, as this character gives us great insight in the logic processes of many atheists, explaining to us the rationale behind their rejection of God, would assist us greatly during any future chances of engagement with them. Also, kudos to Logan Lerman for using of this blatantly anti-Biblical depiction of a Biblical character as an opportunity to showcase his acting abilities.

I’ll end off with this verse by Paul, telling us believers to rejoice as long as the Word is being preached, regardless of how pure or impure the intentions of those who preach the word are. It is the responsibility of us as mature believers to do the filtering of the message, since the period of time for spoon-fed understanding from God is finite. What matters is that God must always stay present to us, never falling into oblivion and indifference.

It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

Philippians 1:15-18 (NIV)