Bachalpsee

There’s no sand on the shore,

No sand to leave footprints in;

There’s no sand on the shore

To leave footprints in.

But there should be pebbles

At the water’s edge.

So, if you get there first,

Will you wait for me?

Will you pass the time,

Throwing stones across the surface,

Sending ripples across the sky,

The white clouds and silver peaks,

Towering, glistening, in the distance,

Mirrored in the water?

Will you wait for me?

Will you pass the time

Throwing stones and sending ripples

Across the water, like we said we would?

Since there’s no sand on the shore-

There’s no sand

To leave footprints in…

~Ben H. Diengdoh

-Bachalpsee

 

 

Floating Cities

 

You used to like just sitting

On the right branch of the cherry tree

Out in the yard, spending hours

Just reading, or watching crows

And sparrows fly about,

Their forms, sometimes dark

Against the summer sky:

An ocean with white islands adrift

upon the currents,

like cities, floating,

towering, high above

and distant; some not so high,

some not so distant, but still above us;

probably with their own houses,

yards and trees; just bigger, taller maybe;

and with their own people sitting  in them;

spending hours, just reading too,

or watching crows and sparrows

of their own, or not,

fly about, dark against even higher towers of white

beyond their reach; some not much higher,

some not too distant; all passing them by lazily,

or not, against the summer sky:

an ocean with white islands adrift,

like floating cities.

 

~Ben H. Diengdoh

– Floating Cities

 

Just thought I’d change the tempo a bit, and post something short, a poem for a change.

 

From White to Many Colours: Musings on the Wizard Saruman, Purpose and Identity.

 

Today, let’s talk about what we can learn from the life of one of the more devious characters in Tolkien’s legendarium, Saruman. There are a number of aspects to his character and his arc is quite nuanced so we’ll be discussing Christopher Lee-uh i mean Saruman the White over a series of posts. Well, without further adieu, lets dive in.

In the Lord of the Rings, one of my favourite scenes is the encounter between Gandalf the Grey and Saruman the White, which Gandalf recounts at the Council of Elrond. During the council, he narrates for everyone the tale of how he arrived at Orthanc, (Saruman’s tower located in within a ring of stones called Isengard)  in the hopes of receiving counsel but was instead betrayed and held captive. The film version dramatized the encounter by having the interaction devolve from a friendly discussion to a debate and then to all out wizard on wizard combat (no spell-casting delays in this one, musta been hi-dex wizards, looking at you Ragnarok High Wizards…wink wink), but glossed over a little detail that many might overlook but which is in fact very telling.  In the book, at some time during the discussion, Saruman reveals to Gandalf that he is no longer Saruman the White, but is now Saruman of Many Colours, and to that effect, he has dispensed with his usual white robes in favour of scintillating robes of a myriad of hues. To this Gandalf wryly remarks that he ‘liked white better’.

To lend some context, for those of us who might not be familiar with the Lord of the Rings and the Wizards of Middle-earth, allow me to explain: the Istari or Wizards, are lesser spirits, or Maia, sent from Valinor, the Blessed Realm, the Land of the Valar(which you can think of as Angels), to aid Elves and Men in the fight against the Dark Lord Sauron. Given that Sauron himself is a Maia who became corrupted, and in order to avoid a repeat of the same, the Istari were commanded to come in the guise of old men, their full power and glory obscured to the denizens of Middle-earth. Five were sent: Curumo, who came to be known as Saruman, was declared the head of the Istari, upon whom accordingly, the corresponding colour of White was conferred. Olorin, known by many names, Mithrandir, Tharkun, the Elf of the Wand, Gandalf the Grey, the last to come and the only one to return. There was also Aiwendil, who would go by the name Radagast the Brown, a lover of beasts. Two other more obscure Istari, Alatar and Pallando, known as the Blue Wizards also came to middle-earth but they journeyed onwards to the furthest reaches of middle-earth and never returned. Little is known of their fate.

The colour associated with each wizard not only denoted their membership in the Order of Wizards, but also constituted a significant part of their identity, and identity that was closely bound to the purpose for which they had been sent to Middle-earth, to help in achieving Sauron’s final defeat. While Radagast, and especially Gandalf stuck to their purpose and thus retained their identity, and thus their colour and rank in the Order to the end of the tale(though Radagast only has a small role and does not figure much into the narrative, Gandalf vouches for his simple and straightforward character and based on this I conjecture that Radagast remains true to the very end though he does little, having left the affairs of men and elves for those of the beasts), Saruman the White goes astray. Having studied “too well the arts of the Enemy”, Saruman is seduced by its wiles, begins to desire power for himself and is corrupted. He betrays his friends and seeks to serve Sauron, or rather, feign service, in the hopes of acquiring the One Ring for himself and using its power to overthrow the Dark Lord and take his place. The corruption is made clear when Saruman reveals he has cast aside the white robes that were so indicative of his status as Wizard and head of the Order, and now favours garb, the colour of which even Gandalf finds hard to discern. In other words, Saruman cast away, and lost forever, his true identity. He forsook his intended purpose, and forgot who he was intended to be. He would spend the rest of the story moving from failure to failure. He would fail to acquire the One Ring, and thus prove unable to betray and overthrow Sauron. He would also fail to defeat the forces of Rohan in battle at Helm’s Deep, and then lose the remainder of his forces to the Ents, upon their arrival at Isengard. A little later, Gandalf, now Gandalf the White would proceed to cast Saruman out of the Order saying to him:

“You have no colour now, and I cast you from the order…”[1]

To demonstrate this Gandalf declared Saruman’s staff(a symbol of his status as a wizard) broken, and at the mere word, it shattered in Saruman’s hand. The final nail in Saruman’s coffin would come at the very end of the tale, when, the forces he had had entrenched in the Shire thus routed, he is betrayed and literally stabbed in the back by his servant, Grima Wormtongue. Upon the death of his body, Saruman’s spirit arises like a mist, and seems to look longingly to the West, perhaps recalling the glory and unsullied splendour of the Blessed Realm of Valinor; perhaps seeking mercy, forgiveness for having not only failed in accomplishing his mission, but betraying his cause altogether. Well, the response was swift, and cold, for a strong wind came and dissolved it into nothing. What had begun with a loss of identity, ended with the ultimate loss, that of life, and of eternity.

Gandalf on the other hand, stayed true and faithful to his calling, to his purpose, his identity, even unto death.  For this he was restored to life and to a status and to power greater than his peers. When Saruman forsook his status as Saruman the White, and head of the order, the mantle was passed to Gandalf, who saw it through to the end, to victory over Sauron.  From the beginning until the very end of his time in Middle-earth, Gandalf never forgot his purpose or his mission, and at all times, strove to fulfil it. In the end, he, alone of all the Istari (so far as we know), was able to return to the Blessed Realm in glory and in grace.

Reflecting on this, we might question as why Saruman did what he did. He had been sent to middle-earth to help end the threat of Sauron. Why did he forsake his cause? Why did he forfeit a mantle of white for a robe of many colours? The text shows us that it was quite evidently his lust for power, for domination, and thus for the One Ring, which would have provided him a means to acquire what he desired. But the question we would then ask, is to what end? Tolkien in his letters(letter no. 181) states that it was impatience at seeing the good work of the Valar accomplished on earth that motivated Saruman to do what he did. Saruman, it seems grew tired of waiting for order to be restored to Middle-earth sought to force what he thought was the right way upon those around him, and have dominion, in essence for the greater good. In other words, for him, his intended ends justified the means But the question that arises then, is whether or not he thought his superiors would approve of his methods, and if not whether or not he thought he could fool them indefinitely? (For more on this, stay tuned for the next article, wherein we shall deal extensively with the subject of impatience.)

Hailing from the Blessed Realm ruled by the Valar, beings of power much greater than Sauron’s, who could have crushed him, as they had easily done his master, the first dark lord, Morgoth in ages past, Saruman should have realised that whatever dominion he could have established would ultimately be brought to a bitter end. He had not been sent to establish any dominion, thus supplanting Sauron’s. In fact his power, and that of his peers had been limited by the Valar so that such a situation would be avoided.  Even if Saruman had remained faithful to Sauron and upon acquiring the One Ring(which he did not) given it to his master, in the ultimate end, they would lose, for not even Sauron’s might can withstand that of the great Hosts of the Blessed Realm, led by the mighty Valar themselves.  Perhaps Saruman, impatient, to see order restored to Middle-earth, seduced by the silvertongue of Sauron(who once poisoned the ears and hearts of men), awed by the might of Mordor,  or simply consumed with a lust for power(or a combination of all of the above) simply, and gradually, forgot himself, his purpose, and thus lost his true, intended identity.

The arc of Saruman’s life raises questions for us if we reflect upon it. Questions of identity, purpose, commission and corruption. For the Christian, the answers have far reaching implications. The quest for identity is a central issue in life, one serves as the driving force behind many of our endeavours, and which governs the majority of our pursuits. But even after having lived for decades, we may find ourselves asking the above questions.

As followers of Christ, we hold to the belief that we human beings were created by God to have communion and fellowship with Him, to enjoy His presence and to glorify Him in all our endeavours. In other words, we were made to know God, to delight in Him and to do what is in accordance with His Will, as the Personification of Good, and thus glorify Him. Now this may sound limiting to some, but when one dwells upon who God is, especially upon the infinitude of his Being, one will come to the realization that to conform to His Will would be to conform to the eternal, inexhaustible and limitless will of an eternal, limitless, inexhaustible being. Conformity to limitlessness, is in essence not conformity at all, in that it is not constricting, but the epitome of liberation(For more on this, I will devote an entire post to the topic of conformity and divine infinitude in the near future, so do stick around if you are interested.)  And we were created to share in the limitlessness of God’s being and character, through fellowship with Him, but when we fell, the relationship suffered a grievous blow, and we were separated from Him. We, in essence lost our true purpose, our true identity.

When Christ came however, his sacrificial death upon the cross restored the relationship between man and God, and gave us the opportunity to once again have fellowship with Him. For those of us who have chosen to avail ourselves of the grace of God in Jesus Christ, we from then on take on a new identity, the “old has died” and the new has come, and it is of Christ, we are called to live henceforth as what C.S. Lewis would call “little Christs” wherever we are. Just as the Valar sent the wizards to contend with the evil of Sauron, to be their vassals in Middle-earth, so too are we sent to be God’s ambassadors to the world, and his warriors against for forces of the Adversary. Along the way, however,  in the course of our journey, we take on roles, and perform tasks, or are burdened with responsibilities that we may imbibe as part of who we consider ourselves to be.

On Star Trek and the Dream of a Secular Humanist Utopia

Hello everyone, its been awhile, and a lot has happened in that time, communal riots, a week long citywide internet shutdown(which was surprisingly cathartic) among others, that have kept me virtually AFK. Its good to be back, and to take a break from the superhero theme, today I am going to talk about Star Trek.

Dreams of a Better World

I consider myself fortunate to have spent a significant portion of my youth watching what is in my humble opinion, the best Star Trek series to date, Star Trek Voyager. Though not the first series in the franchise, it was my first and , though set in the most remote reaches of our galaxy, it served as a window into a different world, a seemingly better world, one where there is unity in diversity and the pursuit of a common goal, excellence in all endeavours: a window into the world of the United Federation of Planets. Voyager marked the beginning of a love affair with Star Trek that has spanned the last 18 years of my life. The Utopian society depicted in that universe, where hunger, greed and materialism had  become things of the past enamoured me, and the harmony between crew-members of different races and species, all living on one ship, filled me a longing to join the ranks of Starfleet myself, and serve, to, as Captain Picard would say, better myself and those around me. I dreamed of jumping on to a Federation ship and exploring the outer most reaches of known space; of sitting in the Captain’s chair, telling the Helmsman to enter in a course, and then saying “Warp 8, Engage!”. I dreamed of going “where no man has gone before!” But amidst all the 23rd/24th century sights and sounds: of dilithium crystals and warp cores, Jeffrey’s tubes and bio-neural circuitry, phasers and quantum torpedoes, astrometrics labs and holodecks, 10-Forward and the many Sickbays, Vulcans and Klingons, Bolians and Borg, something seemed to be missing. Star Trek, in depicting a seemingly perfect civilization, was, while not utterly silent, nevertheless, quite soft spoken in dealing with what the very basis upon which the morality of such a utopian society would be based. Star Trek was soft spoken when it came to matters of faith and religion.

 

Morality in a Million Worlds     

Except for a few instances[1] in its long cinematic history, Star Trek has in generally chosen to deal only sparingly with themes pertaining to religion, and perhaps, from their point of view, wisely so. Given that it, like any other franchise has to compete to gain enough popularity to sustain itself it this secular world, avoiding potentially controversial topics and themes would be the way to go. Despite this however, it has not gone unnoticed that the United Federation of Planets, of which earth and by extension, Starfleet is a part, while boasting a secular, inclusive and pluralistic milieu that would, by the very definition of the Federation itself, embrace all world views, nevertheless seems to focus primarily on only one, that of what we call atheism. As a child, it was my opinion at the time(having neither read nor ventured deeply into that topic at that point) that this was a most neutral approach towards building a society comprising of beings from a great number of worlds, all hailing from different cultural contexts and espousing different world views, but now, as an older fan, I am plagued by questions I cannot ignore with regard to this premise. Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek and an open atheist, was of the opinion that by the 23rd century, humanity will have done away with what he viewed to be irrational beliefs that we today call religion. But if what he believes holds true for the universe he has created, for the utopian society that is the Federation, upon what value system them are its tenets, principles, ideals and codes of conduct based? To put it in another way, in Star Trek : First Contact, when the character Lily from 21st century earth asks Captain Picard of the star ship Enterprise what purpose people would find in a society where greed, avarice and selfishness no longer exist,  he replies that in the 24th century, individuals strive to better themselves, implicitly for their own good and the good of others.  But if the world view of most of the human members of the Federation is secular humanism, or what we call atheism then, what does the word good even mean? How are they bettering themselves? “Bettering” in comparison to what? By what scale of measurement? By what moral code?

Of Flawed Heroes and Tragic Villains II

 

In my last post, I reflected upon this generations increasing fixation with characters of ‘questionable’ moral character, even going so far as to justify their depravity, to humanize them. Taking the prime examples of Killmonger and Magneto from Black Panther and the X-Men series respectively. The discussion brought us to the notion of evil,  its nature  and our generation’s strange need to justify it, and cloak it in a plethora of explanations; basically to humanize it. Now, granted supposedly evil individuals have back-stories, circumstances that produced them, that helped them turn out the way they have. But the question remains, does evil necessarily require some (these days, tear jerking) origin story? Must we be required to always come to an understanding of the villain, be it in fiction or in real life? But perhaps we should not get too ahead of ourselves for there may be those of us who question the very existence of evil. Now some may ask the question here, “What is evil?” and if an answer is given, they might say “That is your opinion”. We live in such an age, where relativism, especially with regards to morality has pervaded every aspect of our lives. Whatever our so called ‘individual definitions’ may be however, I venture to say that aside to the perpetrators themselves and their ilk, all of us would cringe at the sight of extremists executing innocent prisoners. Why? Because we would find it repulsive, saddening, enraging and, dare I say it, evil. Because it violates our sense of morality, or rather some moral law, by which we at least partly consciously try to live by. We would be beside ourselves in anger, if someone were to uphold that in such a relativistic world, the actions of the terrorists are perfectly valid and righteous  in their own eyes, and do not infringe upon their own moral law. Clearly, some things are definitely wrong even in this supposedly relativistic world.

William Lane Craig, in commenting upon relativism and the concept of a so-called post-modern culture opines:

The idea that  we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact , a postmodern culture is  an impossibility; it would  be utterly unlivable. People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering,  and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics(p.26)[1].

.

Regardless of how relativistic or pluralistic our views may be however, when confronted with some of the ‘terrible’ acts that men commit in this world, we tend to arrive at a strange consensus that some things are clearly evil; i.e. they clearly violate a definite moral law. But if so, how is this moral law, as opposed to ones we may conceive of ourselves, set in stone so to speak? How does it transcend all others? If this law is transcendent, then perhaps it is because the law giver is transcendent. But we are temporal beings, and limited in our view of the world and reality. The only law giver who is transcendent and has a view of all creation in its entirety would be he to whom we attribute transcendence as an intrinsic attribute, who exists beyond time and space, in an eternal present so to speak. Moreover, evil, as a violation of this moral law, presupposes that that which is violated exists, i.e. that the natural order, or good(whichever you wish to call it) exists. Therefore, if there is a violation of the moral law, it is  against what is good, and the epitome, the personification of good would be he for whom goodness, is an intrinsic attribute. The only being who fulfils these criteria would be the greatest being we can conceive of, one who is transcendent, holy, good, just, all powerful, present everywhere, knows all things, and is all loving. Such a being would be beyond faculties that characterise creatures existing in this universe such as we understand them, ourselves included. But such attributes are those that we attribute to divinity, and as such,  the only being who fits the bill would be that which we would call God .

Aside from such a transcendent moral law giver, who is the absolute standard against which the morality of every sentient being is measured, any other scale of measurement is purely arbitrary and relative. I remember having a conversation with a friend who is an atheist regarding morality. During this conversation, she stated that perhaps morality should be decided by a majority consensus, to which I replied that by such logic, the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot and Genghis Khan were acting in perfect sync with their own moral code, because their respective views were supported and upheld by an overwhelming majority. So, in a world without an absolute moral law given by a transcendent, immutable moral law giver, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and their own moral law; and no one can enjoy any special right to judge anyone else’s idea of morality.

Moreover, dare I say that, in the absence of an absolute moral law giver, we may, upon closer examination of ourselves, find that our own moral code and our attempts to live by it exhibit a rather unpleasant and eventually terrifying mutability. Difficult circumstances and challenges in life might cause us to slide from, one alignment to the other, if I should put it in Dungeons and Dragons terms. In crisis, our character may be found, wanting and we may elect to compromise. In other words, everyone has a breaking point. This school of thought has begun to show itself in fiction and popular media and ironically, it is the DC cinematic universe, derived from heroes once considered the paragons of justice and all that is good(sometimes cheesily so) that exemplifies this these days. In Injustice : Gods Among Us, it is the accidental slaying of his wife and unborn child, by his own hand, that becomes Superman’s breaking point. In Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice, it can be inferred that Batman blatantly brutal and lethal methods are a result of the loss of Robin, whose vandalized suit is on display in the Batcave, perhaps to serve as a reminder of the price the heroes have paid. Perhaps Robin’s implied death, at the hands of the Joker, was Batman’s breaking point. More recently, in Star Wars Episode VIII : The Last Jedi, it is revealed that Ben Solo’s fall to the dark side and subsequent transformation into Kylo Ren, was catalysed by his uncle Luke Skywalker’s apparent attempt to slay him while at the new Jedi temple. Though the dark side had been festering within Solo, it was this quite frankly rash and thoughtless act on the part of Skywalker that proved to be the former’s breaking point. Chaos ensured and Solo proceeded, with the aid of some loyal friends to kill all other jedi initiates and destroy the temple.  So, heroes have breaking points and villains have humanizing back stories. Perhaps all of this is to make us feel better about ourselves, about the disturbing mutability of our own moral code. But do these tropes really answer our questions? Is evil in the real world as explainable and at times, justifiable as fictional evil? If so, does it always have to be? Is rationally explicable evil the only kind of evil out there?

Perhaps to better wrestle with these questions, we need to look to a being, who is seen by many, myself included as the origin of evil itself. Lucifer, aka Satan, aka the Devil, aka Mark Pellegrino(if you’re a fan of Supernatural and the ‘Family Business’ ,<queue subtle knowing chuckles>), the Son of the Dawn, one of the mightiest of the Angels of Heaven in Judeo-Christian theology, out of pride, sought to usurp God’s Throne and claim sovereignty and authority for himself. He deviated from the purpose God had ordained for him at his creation, and in so doing committed the very first evil act, the very first sin. He and a third of the angelic host of heaven were thus cast out, and to make a long story short, through the events of Eden, caused man to gainsay God’s will, commit an evil, sinful act, and fall also.  Satan has no tear jerking backstory. He has no motivation other than to subvert, pervert and rebel against God’s will. Quite simply, like most classical villain archetypes he wants to destroy all that is good and establish his own evil kingdom. The villains of J.R.R. Tolkien’s legendarium, Morgoth and Sauron are fictional examples of this.  To such as these, there is no sad origin story, no justification, no rational explanation for their evil. In fact, their very act of rebellion against God, the Greatest Conceivable Being, against whom victory is impossible, is utterly irrational.  Satan, is just evil, for evil’s sake. In the words of Alfred Pennyworth, as articulated by Michael Caine in Batman: the Dark Knight(2008) :

“Some men aren’t looking for something logical….They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”[2]

Well, granted he’s referencing the Joker, who in the film,  incidentally, actually performs  evil acts, seemingly, for the heck of it, for evil’s sake, and whose motivations all through the film are to pervert good and to prove that all people are innately depraved and can be made to fall. But is that not, the essence of evil? Is evil not a violation, a perversion, a subversion of good? Whereas good is rational and explicable, evil is, in its purest form, utterly irrational. Where good brings order, evil brings chaos and disorder. Where in all that is good, there is beauty, in evil, one ultimately finds only depravity. Where good stems from a fulfilment of ordained purpose, evil , being deviation from ordained purpose, brings only emptiness.

Now one might object to and question the very nature and need for an ‘ordained purpose’ and to that I would reply, as a Christian, that God created us to have communion and fellowship with him, to enjoy his presence and to glorify him. And to those who might question what it means to ‘glorify’ God, I would ask you to imagine for a moment, what it must be like to live in fellowship with and to do the will of the Greatest Conceivable Being, the Personification of holiness, goodness, justice, righteousness, love, the very source of beauty, creativity and order, of life itself, and we are just scratching the surface here.  And some of you might have noticed that I touched upon that most controversial(these days) of terms, sin, but that is a deep well to delve into in and of itself, and we shall discuss that in the next post.

[1] Craig, W.L., 2008. God is Not Dead Yet. Christianity Today Vol. 52, No.7, p22

 

 

[1] The Dark Knight, 2008.

[2] The Dark Knight, 2008.

Of Flawed Heroes and Tragic, Heroic Villains

This year’s Black Panther was a milestone in many ways. To say the film was quite an achievement, particularly from a cultural standpoint would be to be make quite an understatement, and to say it set new precedents across the board would be to commit the same mistake again. However, in my opinion, the film did break a tradition which had been fraying and decaying for a long time. You see, we’ve all watched films where the hero redeems the villain, usually by quickening or triggering the dormant goodness within the latter(e.g. Luke Skywalker causing a change of heart in his father, Anakin, aka Darth Vader in Star Wars Episode VI : The Return of the Jedi), but Black Panther marks a complete paradigm shift, for in this film, it is the villain who causes the hero to have a change of heart; it is the bad guy who shows the good guy a better way. Although the former’s methods remain rather despicable, his motivations seem reasonable, one of the underlying principles of the world he desires to create, noble.  This shift, thought not entirely unforeseen, was nevertheless unprecedented, and if it is a sign of things to come, is not altogether encouraging. In a way this movie is a rather loud voice that has joined in the chorus that one might consider the dirge, or the funeral march of the typical hero archetype, while heralding the rise of the anithero, or the ‘tragic’ hero. This complete reversal of narrative mechanics which are perhaps indicative of a deeper issue, which we shall deal with in this and the subsequent post.

For those of us who have yet to watch the film let me give a brief rundown of the context and the milieu in which the above mentioned interaction takes place [SPOILER ALERT]. In the film, the fictional African country of Wakanda, which has been closed to the outside world since time immemorial is plagued by political strife immediately following the death of the old king, T’chaka and the coronation of his son, T’challa, the Black Panther. At the centre of this conflict is Erik ‘Killmonger’ Stevens, aka N’Jadaka, son of N’Jobu, brother of T’chaka, T’challa’s uncle, and Prince of Wakanda, who had been murdered by T’chaka years earlier. Killmonger seemingly defeats T’challa in ritualised combat and  ascends to the Wakandan throne as the new King. He then proceeds to bring an end to Wakanda’s policy of isolation and secrecy by beginning an initiative to send weapons to oppressed peoples of African origin the world over with the intention of empowering them to overthrow their respective ‘oppressors’. Killmonger’s radical and extreme methods are quite evidently a product of father’s death, and the harsh conditions under which he had to grow up. It is implied that knowledge what he had been denied due to the fact that his uncle, the King, and advisor Zuri chose to leave him behind and not bring him to Wakanda served only to embitter him further. Killmonger is portrayed as a product of circumstance, and of the mistakes made by seemingly moral individuals, heroes, so to speak, and as such his motivations, and to a degree, his actions, seem justified. To this end, the film has him convincing the hero, T’challa, that hiding one’s gifts and living in isolation from the rest of the world is not the way, that it might even be considered, selfish. At the end of the film, T’challa begins initiatives to share Wakanda’s highly advanced technology with the rest of the world. Thus, even though the villain’s methods are derided, the villain has succeeded in bettering the hero, in showing the hero the error of his ways. The film emphasizes the stance that Killmonger was correct in all but his methods; that the oppressed must be liberated, the downtrodden must be protected and uplifted, bigoted tyrants brought down, but not by any peaceful means, but by the use of deadly force.  These two characters mirror one another, as heroes and their arch-nemeses usually do, but the difference here is that, it’s not just the villain, but also the hero, and his ilk, who are so blatantly flawed. T’challa is initially blindly loyal to tradition, largely stemming from the fact that he has hitherto viewed his late father as an impeccably moral man, a belief that is challenged by Killmonger’s account of how the king murdered his own brother, the villain’s father. Killmonger wishes to right the wrongs in his life, and those of his peers via the use of extreme force. In this film, the villain is given an enormous amount of back-story to ‘flesh’ him out, in other words to justify his ways. The hero however, is portrayed as a goody two shoes who has up to now, blindly, and unquestioningly followed the ways of his ancestors.  In other words, the evil is portrayed is justified and interesting, while good is portrayed as, for lack of a better description, boring.  This is a trend which as we shall see, is something that is not new.[1]

Watching X-Men the movie as a kid for the first time, I was overjoyed to finally see my all time favourite X-Man, good ol’ Wolverine on screen, and I’ve to say, though rather too tall to play the “runt”, Hugh Jackman didn’t disappoint. I was also rather proud of myself because my prediction of who would play Professor Xavier came true, (not that there was much competition for that role, no one else could have played him except Capt. Pic-uh I mean Sir Patrick Stewart.) Yes, I loved the movie, I loved Wolverine, but what the movie truly left me with, which future reiterations such as X-Men Evolution also reinforced, was of course, what X-Men is truly about, at least in my opinion: the oppression of the marginalised and the downtrodden, and their desperate need for someone to stand up for them, to provide for them a safe haven, to save them from those who would exploit them or do them harm. This to me was brought home in the form of Charles Xavier, a man, whom, despite his great mutant gifts, and the power of his students, the X-Men, chose not to use them to achieve his goal of coexistence with non-mutant human beings, through conflict, but rather through peaceful dialogue and negotiation. I often dreamed of living at the X-Mansion, safe under the protection of such a wise and benevolent leader(though he’s not perfect, some portrayals of him do have a dark manipulative side[2]), surrounded by people who would accept me for who I was, and not reject me for any flaws or unusual attributes I may possess.

In opposition to Charles Xavier, stands, perhaps his greatest enemy[3], and also dearest friend, Erik Lehnsherr, more popularly known as Magneto, a man who can manipulate magnetic fields and by extension, anything metallic. Holocaust survivor, Auschwitz prisoner, orphan, a man whose world view was shaped by the inhuman treatment he had endure,  Lehnsherr’s life experiences have ingrained in him the view that there can be no coexistence with the oppressor, the oppressor must be destroyed, in order for peace to be achieved. Lehnsherr has at times played villain, and at times antihero, and he shines in both roles. In fact, on a personal note, I find Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of the young, more antiheroic Magneto, particularly riveting. Why does he shine so? It’s because Magneto’s world view cannot totally be written off. While we may not agree with his approach, we can see where he is coming from. He was once a loving son, one who especially adored his mother[4]. He would have likely lead a fairly normal(though not ordinary if you can lift a submarine or a stadium for kicks) life, had all he had not been taken away by those who gained power over him. One might even argue that Xavier’s view was born of a privileged upbringing away from any form of hardship comparable to that his friend and nemesis had to endure. Magneto has experienced nothing but suffering from those in power. In fact, it brings to mind a quote from the film X-Men first class where he says, in Fassbender’s slightly Irish accent, “I’ve been at the mercy of men just following orders. Never again.”

Magneto, as a character, cannot, given his motivations, be described as a villain, in the classical sense. He, like Killmonger, has faced untold hardship, and is motivated by seemingly reasonable aims. However, both are given to acting on darker impulses. Both give in to rage, and the desire for vengeance, for retribution, and both evidently believe that the ends justify the means. One could call them antiheroes, or even tragic heroes, ranking quite high among a number of such characters. In comic book movie adaptations, several others have recently gained popularity, Deadpool for one, whose motives for ‘saving the day’ are rarely if ever, altruistic, became an instant sensation when Ryan Reynolds’ outing as the character rose to become 2016’s comic book sleeper hit. Frank Castle, the Punisher, who dishes out lethal force to deal with all his foes, doesn’t bother with moral posturing, unabashedly doing what he does to satiate his appetite for vengeance than for any other reason, is gaining popularity on the small screen. Even portrayals of Superman, that most iconic of all upright and good superheroes have darkened of late, with several having him commit murder. In Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel, the Last Son of Krypton kills his adversary Zod out of a perceived necessity, to stop him from harming innocent bystanders, and in the Injustice: Gods Among Us videogame and graphic novel series, he does so out of grief driven madness. Upon discovering that the Joker has killed his wife and unborn child, Superman, in a fit of rage, runs him through with his fist. This was to be the first of a series of murders he would commit including that of his friends Bill Batson aka Shazam,a and Oliver Queen, the Green Arrow, whose own small screen version, portrayed by Stephen Amell[5], started out by outright murdering people. And let us not ignore the elephant in the room, Batman, today is one of the most popular, if not the most popular superhero today, not only because he is portrayed to be a normal human being, who has gotten to where he is because of his unwavering conviction, years of intense training and unfathomably deep pockets, but also because he is so dark a character, whose who will stop at nothing, save murder, so fulfil his goals( well, that’s if you disregard the most recent incarnation of the caped crusader, played by Ben Affleck, who straight out murders criminals by blasting their vehicles to bits, and by doing, well what he did in the infamous warehouse scene in Batman V Superman Dawn of Justice).

While, the antihero archetype is nothing new in itself, especially given John Milton’s treatment of Lucifer in Paradise Lost, it seems we are becoming increasingly interested in openly flawed, downright dark, morally questionable ‘heroes’. Perhaps we view them as free of hypocritical moral posturing,  more honest, realistic portrayals than boy scout characters like Clark Kent or Steve Rogers. Realistic portrayals of what? If the answer is the human condition, then what does it say about how we view ourselves?. We may admit that within us there is a constant struggle between our better nature and our darker impulses. In these characters however, it is what we view as dark that perhaps is featured more prominently. Jonason et al., (2012)[6] state that characters that embody what is commonly known as the “Dark Triad” of human personality, i.e. narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism are gaining popularity, citing House M.D., Batman, James Bond and Prince Vegeta from the popular manga and anime, Dragonball Z as examples. Looking at it one way, it seems to me that it is a reflection of how honest we have perhaps become with ourselves, in that we have begun to do away with moral posturing and are starting to accept that we as a race are many times anything but noble; we are selfish, petty, and given to all sorts of depravity, and yet, despite that, as our antihero icons testify, also capable of great deeds of what we would consider good. In other words, just as we know that, on a personal level, each of us has a better nature that struggles against our darker impulses, we have begun to accept that this is true of others as well, and as such have begun to portray characters of what we call popular culture as exhibiting the same struggle. From another perspective however, the rise in the popularity of these characters may be telling us that we are in fact becoming more inclined towards the darker, more self serving aspects of the human condition, and less interested in the ones we view as altruistic. Characters like Superman and Captain America, who embody the typical hero character archetype, are losing popularity in their original forms, and Superman in particular, has been portrayed as darker, driven mad by grief, even intoxicated by his own power, in the Injustice : Gods Among Us series. We even seem unperturbed by the fact that many of these antiheroes’ character arcs do not necessarily result in them choosing to favour the better side of human nature over the darker side in the end. In fact, many remain noticeably unreformed and continue to act in their self interest, coincidentally engaging in heroic acts for the good of others only if it suited their own agenda. Despite the fact that if we encountered such individuals in real life, we have almost as much cause to fear them as we would actual villains, we seem even more interested in them than the heroes who would, regardless of circumstance, always act in our best interests. Moreover, at times, it may be that modern media and pop culture has begun to portray qualities hitherto viewed regarded to be good and upright, as boring and uninteresting, and qualities that tap into the darker side of human nature, as more alluring, full of intrigue and mystique. Living in a world pervaded by relativism, we seem to have a vague sense of dark and light with regards to human nature, and are, particularly these days, reluctant to view any such traits as possibly evil.

But the questions I ask myself as a believer, as a Christian is, “Is this how the heroes of the Bible are portrayed? Were they all morally impeccable? If not, were their evil acts justified or sanctioned by God? Did he turn a blind eye to their mistakes?” If one delves into Scripture, one will find that it is replete with characters who, while heroes of faith and chosen instruments of God were deeply flawed individuals whose misdeeds had ramifications that were devastating[7]. The Bible records their greatest accomplishments for the Kingdom of God, as well as their greatest failures. Abram, perhaps out of fear for his own life, lied to Pharaoh and posed as Sarai’s brother, not her husband[8]. He was to repeat the same deed again, with Abimelech of Gerar.[9] Isaac, his son would follow in his father’s footsteps, with his wife Rebekah and Abimelech the Phillistine king.[10] Jacob, Isaac’s son, began his journey as a liar and a cheat who robbed his brother Esau of his birthright as the elder son[11]. Moses committed murder and afterwards fled as a fugitive from Egypt[12]. Samson sold the blessing God have given him for the wiles of a heathen woman[13]. David, the man, described as being after God’s own heart[14], sent a loyal servant of his to his death in order to have claim with his wife[15], setting in motion events that would split the Kingdom of Israel. Solomon, for all his wisdom, in his later years, violated God’s express command and let it all go to waste for the love of heathen women[16]. Elijah, great prophet though he was, fled from Jezebel in fear for his life[17]. Jonah, thought himself more righteous and just in his judgment of Nineveh than God himself[18], and we haven’t even gotten to the New Testament yet. While many heroes in pop culture today are portrayed as impeccable, or without flaw, rather one dimensional, Biblical characters are realistically flawed. But what is remarkable is that those who answered God’s call and remained faithful to Him to the end, grew beyond their shortcomings such that they were no longer defined by them in the end. Abram, though fearful at first, fearlessly yielded to God’s will in faith when called upon to sacrifice his son, Isaac[19]. Jacob, though he betrayed his brother Esau, eventually made peace with him[20], following his encounter at Peniel. Moses, went from being a prince, to a murderer, to God’s agent in his plan to redeem the Hebrews from bondage, and their greatest prophet. David, though an adulterer, repented of his sin, and still remained God’s chosen King to the end of his days. Simon Peter, though an impulsive man, who while capable of slicing off a man’s ear with a sword, proved himself also able to deny the Master he claimed to love out of fear for his own life, in the end would die fearlessly, as a martyr. These characters did not always do what was right, and neither do we. And in most cases whenever they did something that was wrong, there were consequences. God neither condoned their sinful acts nor protected them out of partiality from the consequences of said deeds. He did however persist in his plan to transform them from the flawed individuals they were, to the people he intended them to be in the end. Scripture is rife with narratives about how God aids his own in their struggle against their darker side, in the conflict between the Image in which we were made, and the fallen nature than obscures it, such that in the end, the former should rise above the latter.

These days however, we as a generation, are becoming more interested in our darker side. Nowhere is this more evident that in today’s superhero movie trend, which has witnessed the rising popularity of more brutal, ethically questionable, morally ambiguous protagonists, and the darkening of erstwhile impeccably shiny goody two shoes heroes. We demand villains with backstories, wherein they were once good but were transformed by circumstances, under which we might have done the same. In other words, we demand justification for evil. But why? Is it because we want a more interesting narrative? Or is it because we demand justification for our own evil proclivities, to make them seem reasonable, to help us sleep better at night?

But these questions give rise to still more questions: “Does evil need to be justified or explicable? Does it need to be rational? Can evil in the purest sense of the word, be in any way rational at all?” These are difficult questions that require much reflection. Let us thus deal with them in the next post.

[1] While there are great many examples of complex relationships between heroes and their evil counterparts, we shall, in the interest of succinctness, serve to limit our examples to a fair few.

[2]One prominent example of this darker, more cynical side of Professor Charles Xavier would be the creation of the Xavier Protocols which are a list of how to kill the world’s most powerful mutants should they become too large a threat. First seen in Excalibur #100, the protocols included information on how to kill the X-men and Xavier himself.

[4] X-Men: First Class

[5] Arrow TV Series

[6] Jonason, P.,  Webster, G., Schmitt, D.,  Li, N., & Crysel, L. 2012. The Antihero in Popular Culture: Life History Theory and the Dark Triad Personality Traits. Review of General Psychology. 16. 192-199. 10.1037/a0027914.

[7] Regarding the character Daniel and his friends, given the period during which the Book of Daniel was most likely written and compiled, it is highly probable that the character such as portrayed in the text is not a historical character but a composite character whose life is inspired in part by the life of an earlier possibly historical personage, Danel.

[8] Genesis 12:11-13

[9] Genesis 20:1-2

[10] Genesis 26:6-8

[11] Genesis 27

[12] Exodus 2:11-15

[13] Judges 16:15-19

[14] 1 Samuel 13:14

[15] 2 Samuel 11:14-26

[16] 1 Kings 11:1-8

[17] 1 Kings 19:1-9

[18] Jonah 4:1-11

[19] Genesis 22:1-19

[20] Genesis 33:1-12

The Hands of a Healer, the Hands of the King

Of all the worlds that I have traversed, whether via the printed letter, or pixels on a screen; the one most dear to me, is J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth. Of all the works of fiction that have helped shape my life, his has played the greatest role, both in providing a haven, away from the chaos, uncertainty, and unpleasantness of life in our world, and in helping to equip me to eventually, as Tolkien’s friend C.S. Lewis would put it, ‘learn to live in my own world’. And perhaps one of the greatest aspects of Tolkien’s style of writing lies in his unique ability and I dare say, his flair for subtlety, if I might be allowed such a seemingly contradictory description.

And perhaps ironically, nowhere is this subtlety more noticeable than in the Return of the King, in the chapter entitled the Houses of Healing. In this chapter, the battle of the Pelennor fields has been won, and the city of Minas Tirith saved from utter destruction at the hands of the forces of Mordor. However, the cost has been great and many are the dead and the wounded, and to make things worse, the Steward of the City has been reduced to ash, and his son, lies grievously injured as well. It is at such a time that  Aragorn son of Arathorn, the rightful King of the realm of Gondor, of which Minas Tirith is capital, appears, and most noticeably, not as king, with all the fanfare, pomp and circumstance that would accompany the arrival of so great a personage, but unannounced, and, for all intents and purposes, in secret.

He enters the city and makes for the houses of healing, where the wounded and afflicted are cared for, and there tends to three wounded heroes who have played great roles in the tale, Faramir, son of the Steward, Lady Eowyn of Rohan and Merry Brandybuck of the Shire, giving truth to the old Gondor-ean adage, “The hands of the king are the hands of a healer. And so the rightful king could ever be known’[1] and in a way, fulfilling its prophecy.

Some would argue that this is perhaps the least subtle of Tolkien’s attempts to subtly weave his own Christian worldview into the world he had created. But if that is so, it is my opinion that it was most well done, for just as Aragorn began his rule with the act of healing his friends, so too did another begin his ministry, and his mission by healing those around him. Just as Aragorn brought healing to Lord Faramir, Lady Eowyn and good old Merry, so too did Christ come to bring healing.

The Gospel records of Jesus’ earthly ministry are riddled with numerous accounts of the sick he healed, the blind to whom he gave sight, the lame whom he made whole, and the dead he raised to life. In Christ, Jehovah Rapha (God who heals, God our healer) had come. The prophesied Messiah had come and there was healing in his hands, but these healings of the body were not intended to be an end in themselves, for those healed may have fallen sick later, perhaps to some other disease, and those raised to life, eventually died again, having not been raised to life eternal. You see, Christ’s primary mission, was to bring healing of a different kind.

Isaiah 53 is a chapter of scripture that we believers know well. It foretells the sufferings that the Servant of God must endure for the sake of His sinful people, sufferings Jesus had to bear, for our sake, and many of us, when we pray, often turn to the latter part of v5, which says

“and with his stripes we are healed.”(ESV), especially praying for a healing of the body that we or perhaps a loved one, may require. What we may fail to realise is that, if we take into account the context of the passage as a whole,  the healing of the body, or physical healing is quite far removed from what the passage is really talking about.

In fact, even if we look at just v5 we encounter the following:

“….he was wounded for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,

and with his stripes we are healed.”   (ESV)

It is evident that the prophesied servant, is suffering for the sake of our sins, and ergo, it follows logically that the healing we are to received via his stripes, is not of a physical nature. In this passage, men have turned away from the Lord, “each to his own way” (v6) and in order to satisfy the debt we owe because of our sin, God laid upon his servant “the iniquity of us all”(v6), that, through his suffering, we might be healed, not of our bodily afflictions, but of a deeper , far deadlier malady: the brokenness of our relationship with God. Jesus’ primary mission, in his fulfillment of the this prophecy, was to suffer and die for our sake, to bear our sins and endure the punishment meant for us, and be chastised in our stead, so that we might, in and through him, be restored to a right relationship with God.

As Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake, he made him to be sin, who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” The Son of God, Second Person in the Triune Godhead became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and rightful King, not just of Israel but of all creation, who chose, not to come as a King (such as we would understand the term) but as a servant, who then bore the penalty for our sin, even unto death, so that we, who had deviated from the purpose God had ordained for us, and thus lost our right relationship with him, might be healed of our spiritual affliction and restored, to what He had intended us to be.

To say that Tolkien, being the devout Christian and erudite scholar that he was, was no doubt aware of all this when he wrote his monumental magnum opus, would be to make perhaps the understatement of the century.  Thus one might surmise, that the parallel was what he had intended all along. In any case, Tolkien, as always, was right on the money, for the hands of the King are indeed the hands of a healer, and thus has the rightful king been made known. to many, to me. And thus is he made known in deeper and richer ways with every passing day, as my being, bearer of the His Image, though obscured, is healed of its afflictions, and restored, by way of regeneration, to what it was originally intended to be.

May we all, see the healing that he brings, and may we all let him heal us, that we might see him as King, as Saviour and as the dearest of friends.

[1] Tolkien, J.R.R., The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, p860.

Life between Premieres and Release Dates…

Hello everyone, my name’s Ben, and I have chosen to start this blog to chronicle my journey, one. which, in keeping with St. Anselm of Canterbury’s maxim “Fides quaerens intellectum”, has been and I believe, will continue to be, one of faith seeking understanding, making sense of the world around me. If you like what you find here, come journey with me.

I wish to inaugurate this event by sharing with you, something that I have been thinking about. So, please read on…

A friend recently commented on how, today, in the age of big movie franchises and cinematic universes, we have begun, as a generation, to measure our lives more in terms of intervals between movie and TV show season premieres, and perhaps to a lesser degree, videogame and videogame sequel releases than anything else.

If we are honest with ourselves, I think, this is true of most of us. In a way, these events have begun to take up the role of constants, in an ever changing world. I sometimes catch myself thinking, no matter what may happen in between now and then, no matter how bad or depressing,  I am going to attend <enter movie premiere here> or watch the new season of <enter series here> when it releases. Dare I say, that for those who enjoy cosplay and attending cosplay events or Comic-Con and other gatherings like it, such events perhaps serve a similar purpose.

In fact, I remember thinking earlier this year, given the political issues plaguing our country under the current regime, and certain events that, at the time, seemed inevitable, that whatever the case was to be, I was certain at least, that I would watch Avengers Infinity War, on April 27th. And, to add to this,  just a few days ago, I was conversing with a friend, who had a major obstacle to overcome that day, and I recall him the conversation moving from the task he was to undertake , to the premiere of Deadpool 2 in theaters. I remember saying to him that no matter what the outcome of the task he was about to perform, whether good or bad, with his tickets bought, Deadpool 2 would be waiting for him at the movies.

We live in a world rife with challenges, unexpected turns of events, ups and downs, and it may seem, especially to those of us who are blessed to be of the so called Millennial generation, to be punctuated more by disappointments than by anything else. Thus, we may find that life in between these release dates is more bearable if we kept our eye, on the next one. Now isn’t that a curious thought? And when I paused to reflect on it the first time, it sounded vaguely familiar. In other words, it resonated with some, other, faintly recalled aspect of my life.

That life is mired in a swamp of uncertainty is nothing new. In fact this truth becomes more real to us the longer we live. In fact, its always been that way, since the dawn of time, and the fall of man, its always been that way. The difference perhaps, is what we look to, to give us a sense of constancy, or rather, whom we look to. In ages past, men have looked to their gods, many of whom proved to be as whimsical and depraved, if not more so, than their followers. Now, we have begun to look to the pixel heroes who vanquish evil on the silver screen. We know these pretend gods and computer generated heroes of can’t save us from anything, but their stories help us forget our own for awhile, and the surety of their availability (provided we buy tickets in time), gives us a sense of at least something being certain, in this uncertain world.  But can any of these really give us any more than a vague, feeling, a distant echo of the illusory dream that is true immutable constancy?

As I pondered this question, I was led back to the story of Jesus walking on water, and St. Peter stepping out of the boat to meet him(Mathew 14:22-33), and to the 2000 year old, seemingly cliche but very relevant truth, that lies therein. The tumultuous sea in the story reminded me of the chaos and uncertainty that pervades  everyday life on this earth; Peter’s courage, to some of us, sounds all too familiar. We have perhaps ourselves, in great bursts of faith and courage, stepped out of our “boats” too, and found, just like Peter, that our hearts are all too prone to failing and quailing. We look around us, see the uncertainty that we must contend with and then our courage deserts us, our faith turns to doubt, and leaves us drowning in a black ocean of fear and despair. But that is not the end of the story, for Peter looked to Jesus and cried out “Lord, save me!”(Matt 13:30 ESV), and Jesus, who stood there upon the water, unaffected by the storm, unfazed by the tempest that surrounded him, constant, amidst the chaos, did just that.   And there was the old truth, that I had known almost all my life, but which I at times, would forget.

To those of us who believe in Him, the Triune God is the only true constant in this world. Made known to us in the Person of Jesus Christ, who is “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15), He stands tall, unchanging and immutable, sovereign over the chaos and uncertainty that is so characteristic of this world. No matter what unfortunate events or tragedies may come our way, He remains constant, and better yet, he offers us rest and comfort in his constancy. Just as he saved Peter from the waters that threatened to drown him, so too does he offer us safety, from the chaos and uncertainty that threaten to engulf us. Mind you this does not mean we will not have to endure them.. Dare I say most of us shall have to, as we have perhaps been doing for our entire lives. But in Him we shall do so, safe in the knowledge that He is sovereign, that nothing takes place outside his will, nothing is beyond his dominion, and that in the end “all things work for the good of those who love Him”(Rom 8:28 NKJV). This, he offers to us freely, having paid the price himself, and we have but to ask.

 

The Journey Begins

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton