nerdylizard5 - Tumblr blog

nerdylizard5 · 2 days ago

Text

Redemption Arcs, Christian hegemony, and why I don't like the former term as often applied

This discussion around redemption and suffering and characters earning their redemption by suffering has been floating around for quite a while, and I’m not a Tumblr user (well, I am now) so I occasionally came across it, and then lost track of it again. It was very, very interesting and thought-provoking, and it sat at the background of my musings for quite a while, until I decided that I still feel strongly about it, strongly enough to join Tumblr and add my two cents (well, given the length of what I ended up with, more like twenty dollars). But I lost track of the original posts I reacted to, so I’m sorry if some of this ended up a bit confusing. I still want to share it because - you may be surprised, but as a Christian, I actually agree wholeheartedly: this idea about redemption arcs and suffering is wrong and needs to go away.

(I still use the term in AO3 tags, because it's an established tag, but I decided to start using my preferred term, too, where applicable. Also, the idea that characters earn redemption by suffering? Heck no, that's not going to happen in my stories - and if you see them sliding into something resembling it, without making clear the nuances I get into below, I BEG YOU to point it out to me.)

Because I would argue that what it says is not based in Christianity at all, it's actually directly contrary to Christianity.

TL;DR: It's not a Christian idea because there is a distinct lack of Christ in it. And we should call it the repentance arc.

Since I wrote the basis of this whole thing in my own notes years ago, I have also come across the term “Atonement Arc”, and how the idea of atonement is rooted in Jewish traditions. I haven’t really read through the discussions of it yet, but I believe the main gist is that the latter has to do with making amends while the former can be passive. And, well, despite the differences, Christianity stems from Judaism so it actually still maintains some of the same ideas - or at least the version of it I grew up in does. So I have zero problems with this distinction, I agree. I just disagree with many people's careless usage of the term redemption. Therefore I maintain that the sort of thing in fiction people are railing against and that we’re used to calling Redemption Arcs should be called Repentance Arcs, and this is a discussion of why. And why you may still use the term Redemption Arc in some very specific instances. Please do read the long version, because the above will hopefully make a lot more sense if you do, and I suspect various aspects of Christianity (and the whole big contradictory mess of various churches) may also begin to make more sense if you do.

Another needed forewarning so you know exactly where I’m coming from: I’m not Catholic. I’m Czech, and a member of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren, which, an immediate warning to those familiar with (American) evangelicals, is NOT THAT either, it’s just a bit of a translation hitch that got codified in the English version of my church’s name. The short of it is that we’re a bit of a unicorn and actually came about by unifying different strands of Protestant Christianity, are currently on the liberal side of things, and reside in a country that’s currently overwhelmingly agnostic. So, not Catholic, not evangelical in the English meaning of the word. I suspect a lot of the ideas that may lead to this particular idea about redemption are specifically Catholic(-adjacent), or maybe in some cases may stem from the “us versus the world” attitude evangelicals in the English sense often adopt (which does also seem to make them maybe particularly fond of certain aspects of early Christianity that I will touch on below), and I cannot really comment on either end of the spectrum from an insider POV - what you get here is the POV of someone who knows just enough to possibly be able to pinpoint it exactly, or possibly get it entirely wrong.

All I can say on that subject is that if these ideas do officially exist in Roman Catholicism, it’s probably exactly why there are so many other Christian churches that don’t agree with Roman Catholicism, see Final Notes waaay below. Also, from what I do know of Roman Catholicism, if the idea does officially exist, there’s probably a lot of theological legalism and subsequent zig-zagging around its own limitations that got them there, and it quite likely does not mean entirely what people think it means. My own church gets out of a lot of those theological legalisms and meanderings that other churches can get mired in by openly accepting several different historical creeds and essentially answering many “either-or” dogmatic questions with “Both. Both is good.” While it can make us annoyingly lukewarm about a lot of things, it does help in maintaining a degree of healthy scepticism about human conclusions about God. Two sides of the same coin, really.

Anyway.

The idea of earning your redemption through suffering is definitely an attractive narrative idea; I’ve definitely succumbed to its dubious charms myself many times, and probably will again in the future. But what it actually says about redemption isn’t at its core a Christian idea. It’s just our baser instincts appropriating Christian language; it’s a twisted idea that seems Christian on the surface but isn’t at all at its core. It’s not Christian faith that tells you you have to suffer to earn your redemption; it’s the lack thereof, it’s an insufficiency of faith.

What this idea about “redemption arcs” says is that you can, or indeed that you have to, earn your own redemption on your own.

What Christianity actually says is “You can’t, but you do not have to fear and fret because Jesus did it for you.”

The response to that, then, is repentance: recognising you did something wrong, and atoning for it by making amends and sinning no more.

So, yeah, Christianity doesn’t negate that at all - at least not Christianity as I know it. (Jesus doesn’t tell people “go, it’s okay to do whatever you like now,” nor, ahem, “go and get yourself killed”; he says “go and sin no more.”) Roughly speaking, and take this as my own lay interpretation of course, what Christianity says in opposition to other religions is that your redemption for all eternity and the reparation of your relationship with God isn’t necessarily dependent on how well you manage to make amends before you die, or whether other people accept your efforts, and other things like that that you may not always be able to do anything about. (Can you predict the time of your own death to time your atonement wisely? Of course not.) It can be okay between you and God if you accept that it is because He chose to give you that chance; and now it’s simply up to you to go and act the part.

Zacheus is an exemplary New Testament case hitting all those beats like clockwork. Jesus chooses to visit him; and it’s only after that is already decided that Zacheus announces his intention to make amends and change his ways. We have zero indication that Zacheus suffered anything beyond a change in lifestyle; but at the same time, the story would not be what it is without Zacheus deciding on that change. It’s a sort of mutual process that reflects back and forth, and both sides do their part, but Jesus starts the process.

(My own lay interpretation; but I have heard pretty much this exact description of the relationship between God and people as being started by God but from that point onwards being mutually reflective, from both a Catholic deacon and a minister of my own amalgamated Czech Protestant church, so I think it’s safe to say it’s a more universally Christian idea.)

And Jesus speaks about being given to save mankind, he speaks about the need to repent or else perish, he tells stories about people being saved by someone else’s intervention. In all of that, I don’t recall him ever saying “you need to suffer for your redemption.” Suffering is a result of not being redeemed, or just of living in a broken world, not a prerequisite for redemption.

I think this whole notion above of how the popular idea of suffering for your redemption isn’t really Christian at all may also be a bit clearer to me because I’m Czech and you basically can’t say “redemption arc” in Czech to describe a character’s individual story arc. The Czech term for “redemption” retains the original meaning of “to redeem”: “to buy out (of a bond/punishment)”. And the reflexive form of the verb (“to redeem oneself”)... doesn’t really happen much in Czech. Maybe because we actually have a verb for “to become/make yourself better (in behaviour)” instead that could well be used in the non-religious contexts for that process? But the language does also reflect the fact that you usually need a separate Redeemer for that transaction to take place.

That’s a bit of a language aside (my hobby horse), but it does point out some important things regarding the Christian idea of redemption: It is, so to speak, a transaction where the sinner is an object, not the primary actor. Which sounds kind of weird summed up this way but - the primary actor is exactly where the two ideas about redemption clash, and why, as a Christian, I wholeheartedly agree with the distinction between redemption and atonement.

What’s Christian, admittedly, is the idea that some suffering is involved in the transaction; but the whole point of Christianity is that it isn’t the sinner who suffers it. Without that central idea, it’s not Christianity - if there’s no Redeemer involved, there’s no Christ for Christianity to be named after in the first place!

Of course, most fictional universes lack such a Redeemer, and that’s probably where our baser instincts clamouring for blood crowd back in. I think the existence of those instincts is basically why Christianity does involve the element of suffering: People kind of instinctively know that some offences cannot be so easily swept away. For some people it’s very personal. But that presence of suffering in Christianity is still a message of hope and reconciliation - if both sides can accept it.

If not, I think it’s actually equally a message of hope for the victims in that God knows what it’s like.

There is also, admittedly, some talk of “suffering with Christ”; but as far as I can remember, the people explaining Christianity in biblical times always present it as a consequence / choice, not a prerequisite. I also need to point out the use of “with Christ” rather than “instead of” (duh). I strongly suspect that kind of talk was at least partially a result of the fact that in the beginning of Christianity, the likelihood of you suffering for it was pretty high. (It still is in some parts of the world, isn't it? Also, while we're on the subject, kriff off to some American evangelicals who know next to nothing about the rest of the world and think they're being persecuted.)

Speaking of which, I believe I do actually have something of an idea where Roman Catholicism may have gotten its martyrdom for redemption tendencies, and how that may have filtered down into a much cruder idea that forgets a Redeemer exists. There’s a concept of “baptism of blood” in Roman Catholicism. This comes from stories of early Christianity and persecution of Christians (and I guess also persecution of Christians in other parts of the world in later eras), about people who became Christian by belief but were killed before they were baptised. In other words, it’s a legal loophole for the technicality demanding baptism for salvation. As you may guess… I’m personally a bit wary of thinking God can’t see someone is a believer if they happen to yet not be baptised. As I said, Catholics probably got there by somewhat convoluted theological meanderings. For all I know it probably started out as a reassurance for the loved ones of such people.

It’s easy to see how someone (the whole of the Roman Catholic church, sarcasm adds) can get carried away by such stories of martyrs, and kind of forget that it’s not the death but the belief that matters most. It becomes an aspirational trope instead of an explanation of harsh realities.

One thing to bear in mind here is also that a lot of “Hollywood Christianity” is about as accurate as “Hollywood history” - I guess they often go hand in hand, too. A lot of the things in popular culture, ideas and imagery that you might think are inherently Christian, are in fact more of a fanfiction of a fanfiction of a fanfiction of a fanfiction, where the original fanfic is most likely Paradise Lost or medieval legends steeped in eclecticism. In other words, nothing involved in that chain of inspiration is actually Biblical canon. Or maybe, in some cases, it is one particular aspect of one specific branch of Christianity and its theology, magnified out of proportion. So… maybe roughly Christian in origin, yes, but not at all representative of Christianity’s core beliefs. (Much like, say, the Golem legend is one of the most famous and “typical” Jewish narratives out there, but it hardly has anything to do with the life and faith of practising Jews nowadays, and the various riffs on it in popular culture even less so. I think that’s one pronouncement about another religion I can make safely.)

So, yeah, from my position as a Christian, the term “redemption arc” needs to go - unless there actually is a Redeemer.

(Come to think of it, I may have to start using an Atonement tag on AO3, too, where applicable.)

It’s safe to say that Edmund in Narnia does have a redemption arc; but as that’s the case, it’s also important to note in this context that he in fact lives to apply its lessons. An actual redemption arc does not require the penitent’s death.

An argument could perhaps be made for Darth Vader having a redemption arc, but absolutely not because he dies in the process; it’s because he is loved despite everything and finally chooses to respond to that love. He might arguably have an even better redemption arc if he actually stayed alive like Edmund does (although I guess his death is a neat tying off of loose ends from other narrative standpoints. It’s the sort of thing one could, and fandom does, argue about for decades.)

On the other hand, Kallus in Star Wars: Rebels has a repentance / atonement arc, and it’s a very good one in my opinion. He doesn’t earn his redemption by suffering, he suffers because he’s chosen to make amends and do better from now on and the odds he faces are too high. It’s sort of acknowledged in the show itself, I think, when Kanan tells him “Thank you for risking everything.” Kallus’ risking everything wasn’t a way for him to earn his redemption; it was a sign of his already being one of the good guys now, and so he is thanked for his efforts, because they do count, they don’t exist just to balance his account to zero.

The same applies to Edmund, in fact: he goes on to face the White Witch in battle, and he nearly dies in the process, but that’s actually after Aslan’s sacrifice (and after he’s had his one-on-one conversation with Aslan), and he’s in danger simply because the Witch is a powerful opponent and Aslan’s intervention has given him the courage to fight her to begin with.

I’m trying to figure out where that other famous repenting dead, Boromir, falls in all this; but I think you could make the same argument even there. Boromir sees his fast-approaching death as a failure in the face of overwhelming odds; Aragorn reassures him that he did not fail, that he had in fact won, because he did turn back from the Ring’s influence and chose to do the right thing, regardless of consequences. (I’m speaking about the book here because that’s the version of events I’m closely familiar with.)

With all that said and laid bare, I think I now actually have an idea of how this whole situation may, in fact, have originated in Christianity. But it would have happened in a very indirect manner, with false turns along the way.

Aside from the “baptism of blood” technicality, I think the main source of this annoying trope may be one that kind of got degraded and lost some of its crucial components, especially the faith involved, over time. You see, in openly Christian works, you may get a dying repentant who dies in peace and reconciliation. But the point is, that happens because of the Christian idea that the relationship between you and God is what matters the most. So if you recognise your sins and actively regret and accept God’s forgiveness, that’s what matters the most, so it does not matter that you’re dying and will never get the chance to set things right in this world. It’s a comforting thought; it’s a thought that reassures you that even if you decide to change and then get hit by a car and die the very next day, or the very decision to do the right thing is immediately costing your life, the decision to change was not for naught. And in an openly Christian work, some variation on that may be stated outright.

But then it also may not be stated outright if a Christian writer assumes they’re writing for a Christian audience who knows that.

(The one instance that stands out to me clearly, and that helped me see it for what it is, is Old Wabble in Karl May’s books. KM may be problematic in many respects, but at least here he went out and had his characters say what he meant instead of just relying on a trope.)

From there, of course, it’s only one step to the Boromir situation, where the work itself isn’t exactly openly Christian but the author is and is operating in that mindset. ( It also does support the thought that Darth Vader’s repentance/redemption arc is rooted in Christian ideas and tropes. I’m not really refuting the fact that the trope is probably Christian in origin - I’m criticising its execution in most cases that dilutes those Christian origins and leads to frankly dangerous ideas about the nature of redemption / repentance. And the nature of Christianity.)

Here the problem begins, because then non-Christian authors (or Christian writers who don’t think things through) pick up the narrative device without the underlying thought.

And then you reverse-engineer the underlying thought from the prevalent trope and get it exactly wrong.

So, again, I propose the latter term: We should call it the repentance arc. It hits the beats that pretty much all such character arcs need to hit - even the ones where you might argue for the presence of a Redeemer. The point is the changing of one's attitude, not the suffering. And it’s actually a more accurate term for Christianity, too, one that won’t lead Christians to believe things they shouldn’t. (Just how much suffering is enough? As a Christian, you should not think that way.) So it’s an overall much better term for all sides.

Unless, of course, other religions have other takes on this and disagree with that particular term, in which case we might have to keep looking.

On that note, I also wonder, and can’t really comment on, where other European religions and belief systems like those of Ancient Greece and Rome or the Celts or Old Norse fall on this issue. Because I also think a lot of “culturally Christian but actually not rooted in Christianity” ideas from European/white society may actually originate from that whole period when becoming officially Christian was politically expedient (whether for prestige or safety), and so you got a whole load of Europeans who were officially Christian but retained a lot of their old worldviews. Bang, you get a weird eclectic mixture of contradictory things nowadays called “Christian Europe”. Like, say, the whole Arthurian cycle; there is a lot in there that, as a non-medieval Christian raised on a diet of the Bible and Czech Protestant tradition, I look at and go “what the heck is that even supposed to be?!”

(C.S. Lewis calls some of Augustine's opinions "pagan hangover", which, if you forgive the term "pagan", is quite hilarious, and might be fairly accurate for a lot of "Christian" European culture. I'm not saying that it doesn't form a big part of Christian tradition - just that it's often not a very essential part of it, and that after two thousand years we can probably safely say getting rid of a lot of it doesn't make us not-Christian. And vice versa, clinging too close to some of it does carry the danger of making us barely Christian at all.)

Final Notes:

This owes a lot to Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (although the "pagan hangover" above is from Four Loves). It also owes a lot to my lived experience as a Christian in a church that pays quite a lot of heed to the written word, which paradoxically means it’s rather hard for me to pinpoint my sources. Some sort of textual criticism has been par for the course since childhood, and tends to form a crucial part of what sermons are like in my church (look at a text, compare it to its original form or different translations, compare to context and similar texts, compare to cultural background, draw conclusions on what the Bible is actually saying and what it might be saying to us today). So I have a lot of this critical thinking internalised and can’t remember where I came by it.

And: I’m no theologian, but since this has already turned into “Christianity 101”, and because it feels thematically relevant, this is also exactly why the idea of Purgatory - and potentially also selling indulgences for the Purgatory - is controversial and not at all universally embraced by all Christians. The latter phenomenon’s shtick of “you may have to suffer for your redemption but if you pay us money we promise you some of it will be shaved off” is, of course, super controversial and I believe basically the original reason Western Christianity fell apart in the late Middle Ages/Early Modern Age. (We started the actual falling apart here in Czechia, I think I can claim a degree of lay expertise on the subject.)

Purgatory, in itself, is one of the things I mentioned above as things in “Hollywood Christianity” that are far more than Christian in general actually one particular aspect of one particular strand of Christianity, magnified out of proportion - I suspect even in Roman Catholicism, most people nowadays don’t think about the Purgatory too much on an everyday basis; it’s not what the core of their belief hinges on. Meanwhile, as far as I can tell from limited exposure, Purgatory in popular culture is very often basically a “Christian” (emphasis on quotation marks) version of the Greek netherworld where Sisyfos keeps pushing his boulder and Orpheus may descend into it to rescue his Eurydice but then there are also demons and devils because the writer wants to eat the cake and also keep it, in terms of what tropes and cultural influences to use. (And by this point these tropes are so deeply entrenched in popular culture that most writers probably don’t realise that’s what they’re doing.)

So, yeah, just because something in popular culture is “Christian” does not mean that a practising Christian will recognise its shape, or that they won’t roll their eyes at it or cringe heavily over explicit or implicit ideas that hit far and wide of what Christianity is actually about. Because goodness do I cringe. The “Christian hegemony” often isn’t good for Christians, either.

Well. I think that's about the extent of the twenty dollars my ADHD brain came up with. I hope it helps at least some people see things from a different perspective.

37 notes · View notes