Alternative Culture: WandaVision theological review

 

Recently, I managed to watch the long awaited series WandaVision on Disney Plus. As a result, I will do a theological review of it by discussing some of the events of the series. Thus there are SPOILERS ahead.

Synopsis
Unable to cope with her grief of losing Vision, Wanda creates a reality based on TV sitcoms from the 1950s to early 2000s. In this reality, the citizens of West View are brainwashed in becoming extras. Hence the agency SWORD and the FBI dispatch agents to rescue West View and to investigate the cause of Wanda's mental breakdown.

Comforting Lies vs Hurtful Truth
One of the theme's explored by the show is the question of whether Wanda's reality is whether it is beneficial to Wanda (and the residents of West View). Wanda created a family for herself, and a simple, carefree life for her neighbours. (While it is not explicitly implied, Wanda did provide for their town's basic needs as well as making relatives of the residents forget them and thus worry.)

This weirdly echoes the attitude of our current world, which advocates for changing current realities to avoid serious conversations. For instance, sports authorities rather let transgenders have an unfair advantage in woman's sports than to deal with serious repercussions of it. The Washington Post would rather maintain the narrative that Trump is evil bully rather than to give a truthful nuance report.

Why is that so? Because it is so much easier to live in created falsehood in which we are heroes, or have "made it" in life. Real life is tough, competitive and merciless. Yet it is real. If we are unable to identify reality, we will be ill-suited to come up with pragmatic or realistic solutions to our circumstance.

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. -- Romans 1:25

Question of identity
Another theme that pleased me was the conclusion of the battle between the two Visions. There is the Vision which Wanda conjured up (Wanda's Vision), and the other which was reassembled from the original Vision's destroyed body (Body Vision).

The Body Vision was programmed to eliminate Wanda and Wanda's Vision, as SWORD saw them both as a threat to humanity. During the confrontation between the two Visions, Wanda's Vision rightly brings up the ship of Theseus argument: Who is the real Vision? 

After all, Wanda's Vision has the personality of the original vision but not his body. Body Vision has the physical parts of original Vision but not his personality. Only by sharing memories, does Body Vision finally make the right decision and deicide to abandon his programming.

This parallels the Christian concept of salvation -- without the Holy Spirit, humans will never convert accept Christ. Our inherent nature or "programming" is geared towards rejecting Christ. Only via the Holy Spirit will we be able to go on the right path of salvation.

The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. -- Romans 8:7-9

Conclusion
There are things I did not like about WandaVision, especially the stuff that were not logical.

The Director of Sword randomly decides to shoot to two unarmed children. Wanda is portrayed as a hero who sacrificed her dream instead of an anti-villain who brained-washed civilians. A FBI agent can be expelled by SWORD despite it being a cooperative investigation.

In addition, the build-up was slow; it took three episodes to finally establish the plot.

Despite this, I still enjoyed WandaVision and encourage people to watch it.

Alternative Culture: A Grief Observed review

[The following post is dedicated to my friends Lisabelle and Rachel, who has helped me out so much in my Christian teaching journey in 2016.]

 "No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear. I am not afraid, but the sensation is like being afraid."
-- C S Lewis

Some of the most well-meaning works on grief and loss are not honest enough. Most would try to snap the person out of their state by encouraging positive thinking or distracting oneself. Few books would try to deal with the problem emotionally.

C S Lewis wrote in a time of great personal loss. Using a pseudonym (as he did not want people to buy his books based on his reputation), he immediately confessed his feeling of fear, when he was not afraid. He offered few answers about the overcoming grief, yet affirms such feelings of anger and loss.

In a world where we offer mechanical solutions to every problem we encounter, we forget to take a breath, and reflect on our honest feelings during times of strife, confusion and pain. This is a book you want if you do not like sugar-coasted answers.

Theology 1.0: Why is it important to engage with culture?

In the world but not of the world
Recently, my colleague commented that I take fictional works likes stories, plays and movies too seriously. He does have a point. Movies like Lego aren't meant to be taken apart and studied methodically like a textbook on invertebrate dissection.

So why have an alternative culture section?
Taking a page from the Medieval monks (Hanman, 2010), I think that engaging with culture (especially popular culture) is important.

Firstly it provides a common ground to talk about. If we begin a conversation to discuss the Bible with our non-Christian friends, they might lose interest quickly.

Secondly, I passionately believe that every piece of creation, whether human or natural, for good or for bad, is a talking ground for Christianity. This everything can be viewed through the lens of Christianity. Every piece of human art has some level of divine-connotation because the creation of humanity is God-breathed.

Summary
I am not saying that we should engage with culture purely for evangelistic purposes. I am saying that if we love our neighbours, we undoubtly know more about their interests, even if we disagree with the natural of their hobbies.

We can show that Christ even speaks to them in their culture.

References
Hanman, J. (2010) God's Philosophers

For further reading
Bethinking

With Due Respect: Isn't Christianity for comfort purposes only?

WELLS (Dairy Nature Farm), Singapore, 2012

A just a way to get through the night?

Often religion is portrayed only as a form of comfort. The philosopher Karl Marx described religion as the "opium for the masses"-- it was only meant to give the peasants some comfort from hardships of their daily routine.

The father of psychology, Sigmund Freud (1927) best summs up this position by this:
"They (religious beliefs) are illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind... As we already know; the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father.... Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our fear of the dangers of life."

 His stand is clear-- religious beliefs (in Freud's case, Christianity) are due to a deep-seated desire for protection from a father. Hence such beliefs are merely a psychological crutch-- stronger people do not need them.

But this argument cuts both ways
One thing Freud and Marx fail to realise is that whether a belief is comforting has no bearing on whether it is true. In other words, just because some belief gives us comfort does not mean it is false.

If Freud's argument held water, then it is also true for what he believes or not believes. If Freud's disbelief in Christianity gives him comfort, then his disbelief cannot be true either.

A deep-seated desire?
Even if Freud's argument from desire (that Christians desire a heavenly father to match their earthly fathers) is true, it can also also cut the other way. Freud had a terrible relationship with his biological father, and I guessed it can be argued that he rejected Christianity because of that. Personally, it is not an argument I would used for or against Christianity.

Works for you, but not for me!
If Christianity provides purely just comfort, then the old argument that "Christianity works for some but not others" is valid. Truth become secondary.

However we all know the dangers of such reasons. In the field of medicine, this is known as the "placebo effect". A false remedy might make you feel better, but does nothing to cure the illness.

For instance, a cancer patient might take morphine to relieve his agony, but will not stop his cancer from being worse. A placebo could be fatal in the end, but I submit to you Christianity is the cure for our human condition.

Conclusion
I invite you readers to see that Chrisitainity is not a placebo or a mere comfort tool, but something is intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. It is not something that is a mere crutch for weak people, but a cross for everyone to bear.


References
Freud, S. (1927) The Future of An Illusion.


For further reading
Bethinking

Alternative Culture: Inception

I watched the movie Inception recently, and it was really good. Beautifully written, the film explores the concept of 'extraction' in which ideas can be extracted from people's dreams and  'inception' in which ideas can be planted in the dreams too.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as one such extraction artist named Dominic Cobb. Hired by Saito (Ken Watanbe) to plant an idea into the mind of his business rival, Cobb assembles a team of specialists to aid him, which includes Ariadne (Ellen Page). However, Cobb's past haunts him, which derails the mission time and time again.

The fantastic storyline and action scenes aside, on this blog, I want to talk about philosophical issues based on the movie. Don't get me wrong, I think any relation to Christianity based on the movie is probably unintenional (unlike Chronicles of Narnia), but I just want to expound on it.

It's still not real!

I heard once that dreams reveal our heart's desire. For Cobb, it was his guilt of indirectly causing his wife's death that pushes him to a desire to be punished. Until he is forced to confront his fears by Ariadne, Cob cannot rid of his guilt and truly be free. In fact, he seemingly wants it as he sedates himself to revisit his wife.

However, as Ariadne points out, no matter how figment of the dream resembles his wife, it's still not his wife. Like the people who willingly sedated themselves in Africa as shown in the film, he was living in a virtual world.

And an aged African man in the movie says, "Who are we to say otherwise (whether the dream world is real or not)?" But that misses the point. It implies that truth is not important, but comfort is.

But as Christians, we must be honest truth-seekers. After Jesus proclaimed that He was the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). We should not be afraid of the truth, if we really worship Jesus. And we must be honest, not matter how uncomfortable it makes us feelm regardless if it concerns evolutionary biology, the historicity of the New Testament, or even in examining our own lives.

For if we based on our comfort on a lie, what if it all falls apart? We have based our lives on a lie?

The idea of planting ideas?

Inception feels a bit like the idea of memes as popularised (but not originated) by Professor Richard Dawkins (1976). The idea is that memes are cultural replicators, similar to genes which are inherited and passed on to descendants. However, memes also explains the problem of religions as they can be transmitted to unrelated individuals like a "virus". Like E.O. Wilson (1979), Dawkins believes that if religion (or the concept of God) can be explained via natural means, we can rationalise God away.

However memes, have some scientific problems (which I will elaborate on my science blog www.defensedefumer.wordpress.com some other time). Even if it memes can explain religion, it also applies to naturalism and atheism.

More importantly, the concept of memes fail to address an essential question: Why can't God work through natural means? Don't get be wrong, this discussion does not prove God's existance, or disproves God. But I will elaborate some other time.

The real issue is this: why invoke a creator, when nature has shown itself to be able to self-proliferate? It is a question all believers (including myself) should really address. And that is a question I plan to address in the near future.

Conclusion

Watch Inception if you have the time! I give it 90/100!

References

Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene

Wilson, E.O. (1979) On Human Nature