Against the Stream

The Gospel According to Doctor Who

This weekend I spoke at a symposium in honor of the 50th Anniversary of the BBC's Doctor Who. It was a great time, and it made me think about a few themes related to Doctor Who and religion that I've been thinking about for some time.

A few months ago I came across this short feature on the idea of Doctor Who itself as a religion:

 

Now, that's an interesting question, and the video explores it well, but it's not really the question that interests me. I'm more interested in the way that the narratives and characters on Doctor Who illuminate themes within the Christian theological tradition.

And, perhaps surprisingly, the linkages are often quite explicit, and nowhere more-so than in the climax to the three-part episode that ends Series Three -- "Utopia," "The Sound of Drums," and "Last of the Time-lords." NB. Spoilers for Doctor Who Series Three follow.

In this series of episodes The Master returns to Earth and, masquerading as the British Prime Minister, develops a plan to destroy the human race and colonize the earth with the Toclafane, a race that is revealed ultimately to be humanity's own future state of existence. Ultimately, the Doctor is captured and reduced by the Master to an ancient, wizened state. Martha escapes with a mission from the Doctor, and spends a year travelling the earth attempting to fulfill the mission.

At the climax of the episode, Martha is captured and brought to the Master, who is holding the Doctor in a cage. She then reveals that her time travelling the earth has been spent telling people about the Doctor, and urging them to concentrates their thoughts on him, so that at a single moment they will all be calling out his name at once, all around the world. Via a bit of technological hand waving (which is known, no doubt intentionally, as the "Archangel" network on the show), this combined thought allows the Doctor to renew himself and escape from captivity. In defeat, instead of destroying or humiliating the Master, the Doctor instead says "I forgive you."

The Master is ultimately killed, though not by the Doctor, who actually encourages him instead to join him on the TARDIS as a sort of prisoner/companion. Refusing to regenerate, the Master truly dies (well, sort of ), and is genuinely mourned by the Doctor.

It's hard to miss the rather overt Christian overtones in this episode. First and foremost is the idea of Martha as a sort of "evangelist" for the Doctor. Although the Master believes she's travelling the world seeking a weapon, she's actually spreading the message of the Doctor, of his care for humanity and the length's he's gone to save it. It is not hard at all to translate this to the message that Christian evangelists give as they spread the Gospel.

Then there is the fact that Martha's act is itself an act of self-sacrificial martyrdom. She travels the world, at great risk to herself, to spread the Doctor's Gospel. When she is finally recaptured, she is willing to die rather than renounce the Doctor.

And of course, then there is the content of her message, specifically the idea that, if they desire salvation, it is essential that humanity, for all intents and purposes, pray to the Doctor, and doing so actually does empower the Doctor to effect their salvation. Furthermore, this is an act that people undertake solely as an act of faith. There is no guarantee, and really no reason that people should focus their minds on the Doctor, but they do, and in doing so, they receive salvation.

And, finally and most powerfully, there is the Doctor's decision to meet the Master's evil, not with his own wrath and judgment, but rather with forgiveness. One could argue very persuasively that this is wholly due to the fact that they are the last two Time Lords. But it doesn't change the reality that the Doctor's first imperative regarding the Master is to offer forgiveness.

More could be said, and I'm hoping that I can expand these ideas into something of greater length in the future. It should be noted that Russell T. Davies is not himself religious, but in this episode in particular the religious overtones are so overt as to be (for me at least) wholly inescapable.

Misunderstanding Tyrion Lannister

 

Recently, Jonathan Ryan at the Christianity Today blog offered up an analysis of George R. R. Martin's Game of Thrones from a Christian perspective, comparing Martin's world to that of J. R. R. Tolkien. His verdict:

Martin is missing Tolkien's sense of "eucatastrophe," the word Tolkien famously coined in his essay On Fairy Stories: "The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous "turn"…. In its fairy-tale—or otherworld—setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief."

Ryan argues that "Martin's relentlessly grim view of human beings is far from realistic. He is looking at the world with just one jaundiced, damaged eye."

On the one hand, Ryan is certainly right that Martin's view of the world is much darker than Tolkien's, but it's a rather strange to criticize Martin for writing a different kind of story than Tolkien. What's more, I think the key difference between their stories is precisely the one that Ryan overlooks, namely, that Martin isn't writing a "fairy story" in Tolkien's sense. Rather, Martin is writing the historical fiction of an imaginary world, and as such, he is trying to convey as realistically as possible the human limitations and failings of a world that runs according to the principles of "real-world" power politics, and not according to an idealistic assessment of how the world ought to work. The underlying moral question for Martin is whether there is still any place for honor or morality in such a world. The answer to that question, it seems to me, is still very much in doubt for Martin.

But there are many characters in Martin's universe who still attempt to embody principles of nobility and honor, even in the midst of their tragic and fallen circumstances. Ryan's biggest misstep, as Amanda McInnis points out at Cheesewearing Theology, is in his reading of Tyrion Lannister. In comparing Tyrion to Gollum, he demonstrates how little he knows about the character:

Martin paints this grimness in the portrait of Tyrion Lannister. Tyrion is a small and deformed figure born to a powerful and noble family in Westeros. Years of poor treatment and outright abuse leads Tyrion to drink more and more deeply from the corruption around him.

If you've read Lord of the Rings, you can't help but compare Tyrion to Smeagol, the hobbit who becomes Gollum after becoming corrupted by Sauron's ring The difference comes in Frodo's attempt to redeem Gollum. That attempt has no parallel in Martin's world, nor is there anything like Gandalf's admonition to treat Gollum with kindness. Tyrion has no Frodo, and he never will. No one reaches out to him; no one tries to save or redeem him.

Amanda notes how wrong-headed this reading is:

Ryan fundamentally misunderstands and misconstrues the character of Tyrion. In fact, I would argue that Tyrion is in fact one of the most honourable characters in Westeros, with the understanding that the rules of morality in A Song of Ice and Fire are very, very distinct from the rules of morality in something like The Lord of the Rings. Indeed, it is this honour-in- spite-of-all-he’s-been-through that makes Tyrion one of the more beloved characters to readers (and viewers). The same endearment cannot be said of Gollum.

In trying to compare Tyrion to Gollum, the author overlooks all the good things that Tyrion has done.

Tyrion befriends Jon Snow. He rescues Sansa from a fate worse than death if she were to stay in King’s Landing. He protects the kingdom from Joffrey, by reining him in as best he can.

There is nothing comparable to be found in Tolkien's treatment of Smeagol, who is utterly corrupted by the ring and ultimately serves only the Ring, and subordinately himself. When Tyrion is raised, against all expectations, to be the Hand of the King, and asked what he intends to do, his first response is: "Justice."

And by and large he does this. As Amanda notes, he also does other, quite horrible things, most of which are understandable in the context of the character and his sufferings (Amanda says that "while they are not inexcusable, they are understandable," but I think she means that they actually aren't in themselves, actually excusable). But no matter what evil Tyrion does along the way, it is clear that at almost every point, at least to the end of A Storm of Swords, he is acting to keep his head above the waters of corruption in which he's immersed, to hold on to a sliver of morality, while still doing what's necessary to stay alive in the context of the deathtrap that is Westerosi political life.

As much as Ryan misreads Tyrion though, I suspect he also fundamentally misreads real-world politics, at least in the context of the Medieval setting that Martin is attempting to emulate. While modern politics tends to publicly eschew the kinds of cloak and dagger assassination that is part of life in Westeros, one only needs to pick up any reasonable history of ancient Rome, or Medici Italy, or the English War of the Roses (Martin's historical inspiration for the series), to understand that the maliciousness and brutality of political life was indeed part and parcel of a particular time and place. 

Even today, the realities of war and politics are far less subject to moral constraint than Ryan seems to acknowledge. Surely he recognizes that in many war zones around the world, the tactics used by Gregor "The Mountain that Rides" Clegane are nothing new. Surely he's read about Vladimir Putin's penchant for eliminating his political foes through the creative use of applied nuclear physics. Surely he's aware of the damage done to the "small folk" around the world by our own projection of military power, whether via the repeated invasions we've undertaken over the last decade or via the "death from above" approach to drone warfare we've embraced in the last few years. While we may like to comfort ourselves with the illusion that political life and war-making in the 21st century are less brutal than in the past, or that Martin doesn't accurately represent the "real world" of violence in his fantasy setting, I suspect that Martin understands what those circumstances are like from the inside with far more perspicacity than Ryan does.

None of which is to say that there is not room for honor, nobility, bravery and morality in either Martin's world or our own, but what Tyrion Lannister (as well as Ned Stark, Jon Snow, Jeor Mormont, Robb Stark, and Brienne of Tarth) reveals as a character is that those characteristics, when they are displayed, put one at great risk in a world where those traits are viewed as weakness. and thus one's survival in such a setting requires one to be "wise as a serpent" if one wishes to strive toward being "innocent as a dove."

Theological Facial Hair

Reposting this for hilariousness. For my part, I'd happily regrow my guru goatee, but for the time being I'll simply cultivate my post-evangelical stubble.

People Who Play Dungeons & Dragons Know That Succubi Are Not Real

A Paladin In Hell

I clearly have not been doing my part to drive traffic to Slacktivist lately, but today I'm going to try to atone. So let me begin at the intersection of religion geek and gamer geek, a place where I not only hang out but pretty much live.

Slacktivist points us to two articles, the first, as you can see here, is thearticle on succubi from the Forgotten Realms wiki. It's pretty much the standard Dungeon & Dragons definition of a succubus. viz. 

Of the many demons that exist in the universe, the succubus is the one most often encountered in the mortal world. This is due to her extraordinary beauty and carnal desires; traits that attract mortal spellcasters to summon the demoness forth to use for their own debased desire. Succubi delight in causing suffering by manipulating the desires of mortals and tempting them into depraved acts that they would normally avoid.

OK, with me so far? If you're not a gamer geek, I want to make this point absolutely clear: To D&D players, a succubus is a fictional monster that exists to be resisted, fought, banished or otherwise defeated. The key phrase there being "fictional monster."

Thsis brings us to the second article, entitled "Can You Be Raped By the Devil." Here is the key passage from that article:

The two most identifiable sexual demons are the incubus, which is a male sexual demon that traditionally assaults women, and the succubus, which is a female sexual demon that assaults men. Sometimes they also lure people into homosexual behavior.

Adams notes that one evangelist, whose name she would not divulge, was so troubled by the sexual pleasure the succubus gave her that she even contemplated suicide.

Adams says the succubus spirit that used to attack her confused her so much that she contemplated becoming a lesbian.

"Unless you're strong enough to rebuke it, they'll keep coming back," she says. "You must speak the Word of God, knowing you have power in the name of Jesus."

There are remarkable similarities between the two passages, no? The key difference, as Slacktivist notes, is that "people who play Dungeons & Dragons know that succubi are not real."

To which I can only reply by saying that Slacktivist has clearly never played a paladin in a campaign with a rat-bastard DM, who continually throws succubi at you in order to tempt your character into a transgression of the Paladin's Code. Have that happen to you often enough over the course of a campaign, and you begin to believe, if not in the existence of sex demons per se, at least in the fundamental evil at the heart of every Dungeon Master.

Is Doctor Who A Religion?

Barth, Barth, Barth, Barth!

This one goes out to all my fellow Princetonians:

Professor:
Well, there’s Theology and Biblical Studies,
Theology Philosophy and Biblical Studies
Theology and Barth
Theology, Biblical Studies and Barth
Theology, Biblical Studies, Philosophy and Barth
Barth, Biblical Studies, Philosophy and Barth
Barth, Theology, Barth, Barth, Biblical Studies and Barth
Barth, Philosophy, Barth, Barth, Barth, Biblical Studies, Barth Exegesis and Barth
Barth, Barth, Barth, Theology and Barth
Barth, Barth, Barth, Barth, Barth, Barth, Greek, Barth, Barth, Barth and Barth.

(Choir: Barth! Barth! Barth! Barth! Lovely Barth! Lovely Barth!)

Or the dialectical nature of theology with an emphasis on Chalcedon with a little bit of Hegel on top and Barth.

Another Theology Student:
Have you got anything without Barth?

Professor:
Well, the Barth, Theology, Philosophy and Barth
That’s not got much Barth in it.

And for all of you who aren't Monty Python fans, context:

 

Is "The Life of Brian" Anti-Christian?

Tony Jones wants to know whether people think that "The Life of Brian" is an anti-Christian film. And the answer, from my perspective is "yes, clearly it is" and "no, of course not, don't be stupid."

Tony draws our attention to this converstion between Pythons John Cleese and Micahel Palin and two, presumably Christian, critics of the film.

 

The Christian critique is, apparently, that no non-Christian viewing the film could walk away from it believing about Christianity what Chrisitans believe about Christianity, which is clearly the case. But then, why should they? The point of the film is obviously not to make Christian converts, and the mistake these critics make is in misunderstanding what the film was intended to lampoon.

Cleese and Palin try to make the point repeatedly that the film is sending up forms of religious hypocrisy and fanaticism that distort and undermine the message of Jesus Christ. Palin gets to the heart of the matter when he notes that he can't comprehend how Christians can go to church every week, listen to the Gospel, and yet continue to support war and vote to cut funding for hospitals. The response of the clergyman in the conversation (who Tony identifies as "the guy in the pink robe with the huge pectoral cross") is beside the point. The fact that there are Christians on the right side of the issue doesn't mean very much when the established church of England and the bulk of its members sit idly by and allow things to happen which are contrary to heart of the Gospel that they claim to follow. The most it might serve to prove is that Christians can be found, against all expectations, even in the Church.

And this leads me back to my point above: Yes, The Life of Brian is anti-Christian if you identify Christianity with the established Christian churches, their leaders and their followers. The movie is mercilessly anti-Chrsitian if that is your benchmark for Christianity.

On the other hand, if Christianity is understood in light of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, then the movie can't be said to be anti-Christian in any regard. Jesus Christ himself is treated with utmost respect throughout the movie. It's those who listen to him and purport to follow him (or his analogue, Brian), that are the butt of every single joke. So in that sense, Christianity isn't even the subject of the movie, never mind something the movie is against. And the movie seems to take no stand whatsoever on the other theological matters of God's existence or Christ's status as the messiah.

 

Of course, this requires us to make an uneasy distinction between Christ and his church, and that distinction is difficult to make to the degree that Christ is known and followed by this church. But the church is, like the apostles, a fumbling bunch of ninnies, who are usually incapable of finding their ass with both hands, never mind speaking definitively or authoritatively about the revelation of God among God's people.

Tragic Church Signs

Fred Clark at Slacktivist comments on a series of "Church Sign Epic Fails," including an apparently large number trafficing in sexual innuendo:

That last category is a big one. Jesus told his disciples to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Some of the folks in charge of these signs, God bless ‘em, have got the innocent as doves part down. What they need is some kind-hearted, filthy-minded neighbor who’d be willing to supply a bit of serpently wisdom — somebody who can look over the copy for next week’s sign before it goes public.

They need someone who could warn them ahead of time that “Behold, I come quickly” is likely to inspire too many giggles from passersby, never mind why. Or who could gently inform the Christian Outreach Church to reword the name of their C.O.C. Block Party. Or who could say, “Psalm 16:11 is a lovely verse, but you don’t want to put ‘In your right hand are pleasures for evermore’ on your sign.”

Fred goes on to offer additional advice on some phrases to avoid. And really, you don't need to be very pervy at all to figure this stuff out.

Eddie Izzard's Church of England Bit

Just to lighten the mood a bit:

 

Jedi Religion: May the Fourth Be With You

I think this testifies to the power of myth. From the Guardian (UK):

This week, Chi-Pa Amshe from the Church of Jediism in Anglesey, Wales, emailed me with some responses to questions. He said Jediism was growing and that they were gaining hundreds of members each month. The church made the news three years ago, after its founder, Daniel Jones, had a widely reported run-in with Tesco.

Chi-Pa Amshe, speaking as a spokesperson for the Jedi council (Falkna Kar, Anzai Kooji Cutpa and Daqian Xiong), believes that Jediism can merge with other belief systems, rather like a bolt-on accessory.

"Many of our members are in fact both Christian and Jedi," he says. "We can no more understand the Force and our place within it than a gear in a clock could comprehend its function in moving the hands across the face. I'd like to point out that each of our members interprets their beliefs through the prison of their own lives and although we offer guidance and support, ultimately like with the Qur'an, it is up to them to find what they need and choose their own path."

Lucas can screw with the movies as much as he wants, but Star Wars belongs to the world.