I Need a Hero

As a minor note of news, you can now view comments to a post while staying on the main page of this blog--just click the "X Comments" link and it will pop open.

On to the post.

With recent changes in superhero movies and the increased popularity of fantasy stories, the concept of "hero" has changed dramatically. Should the hero of a story be infinitely powerful and morally perfect, like the early concepts of Superman? Should the hero be constantly challenged by inner conflict, likeFrodo? Should the hero even be a hero?

The fantasy genre is especially going through this conflict, with its many subgenres such as sword-and-sorcery, high fantasy, and low fantasy. The main difference between genres within fantasy, besides types of mythology used, seems to be the concept of heroes. I realize I am now in the minority as a fan of high fantasy.

High fantasy is a dying art--because it includes admirable heroes. And the trend seems to be away from this type of hero. Many people don't want to look up to the characters in a book--they want to relate to them.

Role-playing Games
When did this trend start? Besides the simple fact that moral heroes make our increasingly sinful world feel uncomfortable, there is another factor. Fantasy has seen a comeback since the days of Tolkien largely due to role-playing games.

Role-playing games began as a form of cooperative storytelling--everyone assumes a character and describes that character's actions based on their personality and character traits. Not surprisingly, the more popular these games became, the more corrupted they became. The word "game" led people to believe that the object was winning, not coming up with a good story. So players built their characters to do whatever would make them stronger and wealthier, not what would be most realistic.

When role-playing games moved to computers and video games, the game obviously had to become about growing stronger and wealthier, not about the story. Who would play a computer game where the goal wasn't to get stronger? So the heroes no longer wanted to save the world, as much as they want to make money and gain experience.

The Mercenary
For a player who wants to make a character that will gain wealth and experience fast, the easiest character to create is the mercenary. This character does not care about other people unless helping them will earn him rewards. He may do good or evil--whichever helps his personal gains.

This character is almost necessary is computer and video game RPGs. But because of the popularity of RPGs in general, this character has spilled over into standard fiction. Fantasy books are full of characters who only wish to serve their own ends--and these are more often than not the favorite character. No one respects a true "good guy" any more.

Heroes and Anti-Heroes
This doesn't mean that heroes can't have struggles. The anti-hero can be a great character in a lot of fiction--someone who can't decide whether he is good or evil, someone who does evil thinking he is doing good, or someone who tries to be good (or evil) and constantly struggles with crossing the line. No character should be perfect. However, there is a line crossed. A good guy should be good. Never perfect, but someone one can admire. I want a hero to be someone at least a little better than I am--but so many stories have even the main characters behaving worse than the average person. And if the writer wants to get across that a certain person is a good guy, I should know that he's a good guy--and in the end he should have conquered at least some of his demons--not given in to them.

The Hero and the Mercenary
An example of the breakdown of heroes is the Pirates trilogy. Take Jack Sparrow in Pirates 1. He's an antihero. He mostly does everything for his own benefit--or so we thought. He just can't bring himself to betray the good guys even when it was in his best interests. He does things that he calls "incredibly stupid"--he can't explain why he does good, but he does it. Jack Sparrow was a man one could respect, yet retained the mystique of a "bad boy" nature.

But in Pirates 2 and 3, this changed. Writers noticed that it was Jack's bad side that attracted viewers, not his good side. So they played this up in the next movies. He changed into the mercenary. He no longer had any conscience at all. Any good he did was only because he thought it would benefit him more. He changed from a mysterious, intriguing anti-hero to a selfish, grubby, pitiable mercenary. This, I believe, is why these movies were not received as well as the first by many. As much as people say they want to relate to a character, everyone wants someone they can look up to.

This is why Spiderman is more popular than, say, The Punisher. Spiderman is relateable in that he possesses weaknesses and flaws, but he does what is right when he can.

Mercenaries can be great characters in fiction--as can anti-heroes. But sometimes, it's refreshing to have a character "just trying to do the right thing in a mixed-up world"--someone doing good, simply because it's the right thing to do.

Shedding the Blood of Prophets

This post is sort of a pet peeve, but I have reanimated that decaying corpse quite enough--so I will refrain from using that term in this post.

I was reading Matthew 23 recently, and came across this passage--

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?" (Matthew 23:29-33, NASB)

The Pharisees boasted in their descent from the heroes of the Old Testament, while at the same time declaring that they would not have made the same mistakes. Christ declared that they made the exact same mistakes and so demonstrated the lineage they boasted in.

We look at this example and wonder how the Pharisees could claim that they would not kill prophets while planning to kill Christ? Couldn't they see?

But here we make the exact same mistake as has been made all through history--we think we are too smart to fall into the same holes as our fathers, and we fall. We say to ourselves "How could the Israelites in the desert continue to doubt? How could Moses disobey God in striking the rock? How could the disciples not have faith when the storm clouds came? How could Martha not see that Mary had chosen the better part? How could Peter deny Christ? How could Israel praise Jesus only to crucify Him a few days later?

We say, "If I had lived in the time of Christ, I would have followed Him." But when we look honestly at ourselves, can we still say this? We have the full revelation of the Bible and the Holy Spirit to help us live rightly, yet still we sin. How then can we condemn characters in the Bible when they erred, in absence of these benefits? Would we, without seeing the whole story, accept the claims of a country preacher to be God incarnate?

When looking at Bible stories that present characters in a less than favorable light, remember this--these were the founding fathers of our faith. We should not give them the status of demigods as the Catholics have done, but we must not condemn every sin committed without keeping in mind our own flawed nature.

A couple examples--

(1) Martha. So often we see Martha as the carnal busybody with no concern for the spiritual. Foolish Martha, why can't you be like your sister Mary?

But we forget to look at Martha's other appearance. John 11 gives us considerably more insight about Martha's character. We see how Mary and Martha respond to the death of Lazarus because Christ delayed.

Often we read this story with our anti-Martha filter on. We see her say "if You had been here, my brother would not have died," and see her rebuking Christ for not getting there sooner. Then we see Mary say the same thing and think, Poor, wounded Mary.. She just wanted her brother to live. Why are we so biased? They say the same thing--yet Martha adds more. Mary's faith stops there until she actually sees Lazarus raised up. But Martha says more--

"Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give you."

She understood that Jesus has the power to do anything--faith we don't see in Mary. See what she says next.

"Jesus said to her, 'Your brother will rise again.' Martha said to Him, 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.'"

Martha saw that an immediate resurrection was not necessary--she would see Lazarus again and it would be enough. Later she acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, demonstrating theological knowledge beyond her time--namely, the resurrection and the fact that the Christ was also the Son of God. She had more faith than many, since she did not need to see a miracle to believe. So instead of criticizing her, we should learn from her example.

(2) Peter. Peter is another example of a hero of the faith whom we bring down to make ourselves feel better about our own faith. We tell ourselves that we would never deny Christ, or that we could have walked on the water without doubt.

Peter is one of my favorite characters in the Bible because he's an excellent example of how God uses the traits we already have. Peter's personality? He was a rock--in more ways than one. He was a scandalon-- a rock of offense who said what was on his mind no matter what people thought. This was both an advantage and a disadvantage. He was often the first to speak--and sometimes he was right, sometimes not. But at least he spoke up. A good example is in Matthew 16. Peter is the first to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ--not being afraid that the others wouldn't follow. Not long later he rebuked Christ for talking of his death--once again speaking up first, but this time he was wrong.

Take the example of walking on water. Peter didn't have the faith to walk when the waves grew large--but everyone else stayed in the boat! Would we have gotten out?

One of Peter's biggest blunders is his denial of Christ. We criticize the fact that he was only in the courtyard a short time before he broke and denied Christ. But except for John, all the other disciples had already forsaken him! (Matt. 26:56) Peter's denial was not an example of how he was weaker then the other disciples, but how even he could not boast in his strength.


The main thing to remember is that the people in the Bible we often criticize were great men of the faith (why is it that Peter is called "the one who denied Him" instead of "the one who walked on water" or "a pivotal character in the founding of the church"?). They kept the faith without the Holy Spirit or the complete Scriptures. So go a little easier on them when they "shed the blood of prophets".