Really? I’ve always thought of both of those things as quite Mormon notions. Alma’s statement that all things denote there is a God, President Benson’s statement that God will have a humble people whether they choose it or he compels them, Mormon’s description of the Nephites and their being shown signs and instead of turning to God being angry that they can’t be happy and provident in wickedness all seem right in line with this concept.
The idea that God does watch over us even when we think he’s abandoned us, that many of our trials are actually God’s hand at work to provide or protect in ways we don’t understand, that evidence after evidence is given but we have to at some point decide to act all seem quite Mormon in nature.
I disagree to some extent about Alma the younger being that different from Hess in this situation. Yes, Alma the younger had decision making to end the torment- but Hess did as well. The signs pointed to what was at that time undeniable as the way to end the torment, but hes could have chosen to not believe, to continue being angry at God, to refuse to make the connection. Yes, it’s unclear as to whether he really believed up until after things worked- but there is what you call that leap of faith moment. And it isn’t clear whether it was him changing or God changing him- but how is Alma really any different? How much faith did Alma really have to exercise. At that point he knew of a certainty that God existed and that he was punishing him and the only way out was to ask. At Hess’s “ah ha” moment when everything clicked he knew that God hadn’t been ignoring or punishing him and that all he needed to do to get out of the situation was to act. In some regards, I think Hess’s required more faith. Faith in God or faith in Christ? Not necessarily, though to believe that his wife’s words really were instructions from God and that it wasn’t coincidence such that he would act on them does seem to be faith in God.

I agree quite a bit with Kaimi- that we have a theology both that faith precedes the miracle and of miracles or signs pointing people towards belief. But I certainly don’t think those things conflict- really I think the relation between them is one of the main points of The Lectures on Faith. There has to be something extraordinary that happened, at least to someone, for there to be anything which we can even look to place our faith. Otherwise we’d just be randomly believing. The miraculous was there, we placed faith in it and further miracle happened as a result/or even if non miraculous things work out properly from our actions inspired by the early miracle and we know we were right to take the leap of faith and act according to the signs.

All that said, I still think that Shyamalan has only made two great movies and Signs is not one of them. I think the message and the means of connecting everything together was more heavy handed that a seminary video, and the lack of internal consistency really can’t help but bug me. The concept is fine and it is emotionally moving (even if in a transparently manipulative way) but overall the execution just falls short which really is a shame.

I worry about faith based on signs, and finding grace in convergences of circumstance. I was raised in a Mormon culture where it was common to hear the words, “It was meant to be” and where people took good things, things that involved what others would explain as coincidence as evidence that God was in their lives–like the final coming together of several unlikely things in the segment you gave. I wonder if this is a healthy faith. I wrestle with these things. When I was in Graduate school I watched an atheist get “blessings” that he called luck or just life, and when similar things happened to me I would call them blessings. When bad things happened to him, he would shrug and say, “Stuff happens” while I would double my efforts to be good so I could get over my current trial. Since then I’ve tried to see blessings in the depth of life if good or bad stuff is going on. A faith based on grace manifest as coincidence seems dangerous. If the Gibson character had died, he would not have come to God, but I think God is there regardless.

Funny thing, Lat night I was telling my wife about the Signfeld episode where Elaine says, “The Dingo ate your baby.” While I was typing this, the day after I mentioned it to my wife, just now it airs. I think such coincidences are signs of something. I’m not sure what.

I see miracles. I even have a word for them: Manna. But life will always bring us face to face with things our faith won’t easily explain or cover, and we might even quit believing for a moment–or at least persuade ourselves that we have quit believing. (See _A Grief Observed_, which C.S. Lewis published under a pseudonym because he knew his audience wouldn’t want to see him falter in his faith.)

My family owns _Signs_.

In the moment of crisis, the thoughts rush to his brain and he is caused — by God? — to see.

This is how I’ve experienced most of my spiritual enlightenments or epiphanies–all the ones that I can recall, in fact. They’ve always come as a surprise and usually in the midst of me railing against God. I think the important thing is that Hess chooses to see God’s hand in events at all–the timing is less important. It could all still be a coincidence, or for that matter, his imagination. If he’s “caused to see,” well, I suspect that each of us is caused to see, in some respect, when we choose to have faith. Faith is a mysterious thing. I think we forget that even though it requires action, it is still a gift.

Unbreakable is a fantastic movie. The Village was okay. Lady in the Water was awful. I didn’t even see the Happening. I’d even forgotten it existed. I’m not sure that I remember it existing now.