Asylum of the Feels: When Marriage is(n't) Beautiful

This is Oswin. She's Moffat's surrogate. 

She burned & discarded all of your feels.

(Image courtesy of the Doctor Who tumblr)

In case you were living under a rock (or you believed you hadn't seen enough episodes of Doctor Who to tune in), series 7 premiered on September 1st with the highly anticipated "Asylum of the Daleks," written by the Feels-Breaker-in-Chief himself, Steven Moffat. The point of this post is not to write a review of the episode - though the desire to unleash my opinions is hard to curb, I admit - but rather to speak on one point that bothered me significantly (SPOILERS!!): the circumstances surrounding Amy and Rory's divorce. 

If you've seen any of Matt Smith's episodes, you know that the Ponds are inseparable and quite devoted to one another. Amy: The Girl Who Waited. Rory: The Last Centurion, who stood guard for his wife for 2,000 years while she was in the Pandorica. In series 6, we saw just how strong their relationship is and how far they are willing to go for each other. But in series 7, the Ponds are splitting up. 

Why?!

Because of this.

The instant I watched that scene, I knew I was not experiencing it the way Moffat intended. It was supposed to be a picture of how much Amy is willing to sacrifice for Rory, and I was supposed to feel my heart breaking as I understood her reasons for sending Rory away. All of my feels (the internet's cutesy way of saying "emotions," for those not in the know) were going the way of Oswin's souffle when I came to a grinding halt as Amy's rationale clashed horrendously with my understanding of the biblical take on marriage. Strap yourself in for a rare post about how Doctor Who and Christian theology don't harmonize.

Point 1: "I gave you up."

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe marriage is a lifelong commitment. "For better or for worse...till death do us part." I support my belief with the verse in Genesis 2 (and Matthew 19 and Ephesians 5) that talks about how man and wife are to be "one flesh" (ripping apart one flesh means you kill the one...not that you suddenly have two) and the numerous instructions throughout the old and new testaments that discourage divorce for pretty much any reason except adultery. So when Amy said that her "kicking Rory out" was actually "giving him up," I had to frown and scratch my head.

Since when did giving up on someone who is good to you and loves you become a good thing? Doesn't the media preach that love overcomes all obstacles? Amy couldn't give Rory what he wanted, so she backed out  of the marriage entirely, thinking that was a better option. (Soapbox-Aside: Does the term "adoption" mean anything to you, Ponds? Seriously. I never understood why people would rule out or ignore adoption simply because it wouldn't be "their" child. How much can you want kids, then?) Rather than inspiring and mature, I think the decision to get a divorce over not being able to give your husband children is one of the dumbest, extreme and most immature decisions possible. You're willing to cast off years of a totally unique and unsurpassingly deep relationship because you can't get preggo? Sounds more like a juvenile's thought process rather than an adult's, to me.

Not that I'm especially opinionated, or anything. 

Point 2: Total lack of communication

The revelation of Amy's reason for divorce was a shock to the viewers, but it was also a shock to Rory. In my opinion, this was the most frustrating part of the entire scene. This issue has all but destroyed the Ponds' marriage and poor Rory had no idea it was underneath the rubble...because Amy never said word one.

In light of everything we know about Rory, and bolstered by the restoration of their relationship at the end of the episode, we can imagine how things might have turned out had Amy simply been forthright. Had she told him why she wanted to give him up (that is, to enable him a chance to have kids with someone else), he would have said that she mattered more to him than kids because he loves her and that they would work through it, somehow. End of drama. Back to the TARDIS. Instead, she didn't let him in on her struggle and chose to push him away. Which led to severe heartache and divorce, not to mention a huge mess for the Doctor to clean up as a side-project while saving the Daleks.

If marriage is the union of two people into a symbolic one, then all neurons must be firing and communicating at all times. The left side of the body can't hide things from the right. Similarly, one member of a married couple can't hide anything from the other, especially not something this important. It destroys the relationship because it's akin to saying, "I don't trust you enough." No healthy relationship can thrive without mutual trust, and no trust can form without vulnerability. Amy didn't give Rory the chance to carry her burden; she automatically assumed he couldn't, or wouldn't react the way she wanted. I find that sad. Forget the fact that he's Rory flipping Williams and has proved himself to be totally awesome...

...but how little faith does a she have in her husband? I'm sorry, Moffat, but having Amy "give up" the man who has combed the stars to find and rescue her is not beautiful screenwriting. There is nothing beautiful about giving up on your spouse - neither emotionally nor poetically.

When marriage is beautiful

If you ask me, the most inspiring couples are the ones that fight to love each other in spite of everything that comes their way - be it infertility, racism, dementia or poverty. Marriage is beautiful when it manages to work when all the rules of the world say that it shouldn't. When society would advise ending the game and parting ways. When it hurts to stay together, but it would kill to separate. That's real beauty, in my book. It's easy to be with someone when life is rosy and your world fits into a neat little box. When that box is upturned, its contents spilled and life plays hardball, however, true character shines through and heroes can emerge. 

I think the notion of Amy being unable to have kids because of Demon's Run is a fantastic subplot because it shows the price of running with the Doctor. I would have loved to see the Ponds struggle with that and their emotions associated with both the infertility itself, as well as the Doctor's role in it all. I think a scene at the Pond home with them trying to make sense of the news would have been terribly dramatic. It might have added a darker tone to their relationship with the Doctor and given them a chance to wrestle with complex emotions. It would have given more realistic weight to why the Doctor only picks them up occasionally, now. We might have seen Amy's love for Rory as she explained her desire to sacrifice herself for his wishes, and we might have seen Rory prove once again that he is as devoted and true a man as anyone could dream up. We could have peeked into their souls, scraped the foundations of their marriage and exposed their worldview. Instead, we got a sudden divorce on a silly pretext and a convenient reconciliation. Dramatic, yes, but inorganic and ultimately disheartening.

Divine romance, ultimate beauty

I couldn't finish this post without bringing God directly into the picture. I think I've made it clear that I believe marriage is sacred and shouldn't be ended for almost any reason. The question you might be asking is, "Why? So, the bible says man and wife should be 'one flesh,' big deal." Well, it's more than that.

Ephesians 5:22-33 reveals that marriage is supposed to be an illustration of Christ's relationship with his followers, the Church (referred to in the new testament as the "bride of Christ"). Thus, a woman is to honor, respect and obey her husband as the church honors, respects and obeys Jesus. Similarly, a man is to love his wife sacrificially, lead her in righteousness, protect her and provide for her, like Jesus does for his church. Marriage, then, shows the world a little peek at how God loves us and how we should respond. Marriage is a witness, a testimony, of God himself. As Christians - those who are "ambassadors" of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20) - we have to be extremely careful to represent God accurately to others. If marriage is God's way of demonstrating how he loves, then anything short of a fully devoted relationship impugns God's character. Divorce for reasons not outlined in the bible is a false witness that God can't hack it when things get tough, or that his love is somehow dependent upon our behavior. (It's not. Nothing you do could increase or decrease his love for you. In case you missed it the first time: nothing you could possibly do could alter how much he loves you right now. His love is perfect, selfless and overwhelming.) In fact, God's love is fearsome in its relentlessness. 

So, please, fight for that witness of beauty. Marriage isn't always pretty, but it's based on the unsurpassing splendor of the perfect loving Groom, and it's the best portrait we can paint of him until he returns.

Until next time! May you add to someone's pile of good things.

Katya

Doctor God: "I've got to give them a choice."

 The Doctor: The Sad Man With A Box

In one of my theology classes, last week, we were discussing the various attributes of God. This inspired another discussion of how to reconcile two paradoxical characteristics of perfect justice and perfect mercy.Our line of thought was that if God is wholly just and he gives us what we deserve (no more and no less), then how can he be perfectly merciful, when that means giving us something we don't deserve? One of the answers posited was that God chooses which attributes to express in particular moments in ways that are not contradictory to his nature. For example, God is completely sovereign over all of creation, but he still allows people to choose to ignore him, a la the garden of Eden. As ruler of the universe, he could have easily made Adam and Eve stay away from the forbidden tree (or never have created the tree in the first place), but he instead offered humanity a choice to follow him or deal with the consequences. Now, I am certainly not going to try to tackle the reconciliation of omnipotence and free will, but I am interested in the notion of freedom in the context of a greater power, and I find it relates to Doctor Who quite significantly.

In virtually every episode, the Doctor finds himself pitted against a malevolent or destructive enemy that only he can stop. As I've mentioned before, the Doctor considers violent action a last resort and he always tries to talk an enemy out of whatever he's doing in order to preserve as much life as possible. Often, however, the enemy laughs at his attempts to compromise and continues in the same villainy, forcing him to take extreme and brilliant measures to save the day. What I love most about the Doctor's attempts to save even his enemies is summed up in this clip beginning at 0:45, from series 4's The Poison Sky (SPOILERS):

The Sontarans are going to annihilate the planet, after having killed plenty of UNIT members and innocent civilians in the previous episode, and the Doctor is going to stop them. Except, instead of wiping them out, dusting off his suit and jumping back into the TARDIS with Donna, he offers them one last chance to leave in peace. In spite of everything they've done and everything they deserve, he leaves the door open one last time for a kind of redemption. No matter how contrary the evidence or how stubborn the foe, he never gives up on a being's ability to change for the better. And I think that's beautifully God-like.

Freedom to choose

The Doctor has respect for every kind of life, even those that don't deserve it. This is obvious when you see him try to save his enemies from destruction, but it's even more poetic when you see it in his attitude during negotiations. We all know he's the man with a plan and that, somehow, he will get himself and his friends out of trouble. His enemies never truly prevail against him because he's smarter, quicker and occasionally plain luckier than they are. As viewers, we might be tempted to view his efforts to talk the Sontarans (or the Daleks, or the Cybermen, etc.) out of destroying the planet as the fruitless endeavors of a hopeless optimist. However, that final offer to stand down and avoid the Doctor's consequences is more than simply a last-ditch attempt at pacifism. It's an incredible statement of the Doctor's respect for a creature's freedom to decide for itself.

It would be much easier (and far less dangerous, to be sure) for the Doctor to get rid of any and all threats at first sight. Considering how brilliant he is, and that he was a soldier in the Last Great Time War, it's not hard to imagine that he could eliminate anything that stood in his way. (After all, he's known as the Oncoming Storm and the Destroyer of Worlds - the most feared creature in all the universe.) He could just blow up the Sontarans and go home for tea and cookies, but he instead presents them with a choice. All that power and genius, and he puts it on the backburner to give them one last shot at doing the right thing. Why? Because he believes sentient beings have the intrinsic right to make decisions for themselves, no matter how stupid or wrong. Of course, the stupid and wrong ones have consequences that he's forced to deliver, but it wasn't for lack of warning or trying.

How God-like is that? Think of all the books of the bible in which God tells/warns/beseeches the children of Israel to change their ways to avoid the consequences of their sin. Think of times in your own life when you've known to act better, but you went ahead with it, anyway. God doesn't want to punish his creation (why do you think he sent Jesus? John 3:16-17), but he chooses to allow us to act in ways that result in punishment, much like parents would, who want to teach their child a lesson. Even to the instant before we sin, God pleads with us through the Holy Spirit, through the scriptures and through the counsel of others not to do it. How we respond, however, is completely up to us. Sure, God could come down and force everyone to love him and follow his instructions, but he chooses not to. He chooses to limit his power and give us the freedom to obey or disobey. 

Freedom to suffer

While we have the ability, through sheer grace, to do what we will with our lives, our freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum. Every action has repercussions, and sinful ones are no exception. With our right to make decisions comes the responsibility of accepting their consequences. We are free to live according to the way God prescribed, and we are equally free to ignore it. Fair's fair, though: if you don't play the game according to the rules, you are subject to the penalty. Thus, your freedom to live includes the freedom to suffer for your decisions. 

Sadly, people's desire for independence causes them to make choices that, they think, will give them real freedom. Often, people mistake Christianity for a constricting system of rules set down by a controlling god more interested in himself than in people. Consequently, they reject divine authority and live how they please. Sometimes, nothing catastrophic happens in their lives and they feel justified in their choices, and sometimes the path they take leads to serious repercussions that destroy their lives. Does that mean that God was only punishing some people and not others? No. Because that's not how God does things.

The point of Christianity is not to follow the 10 commandments and the golden rule. The point of Christianity is to restore the perfect relationship mankind had with God before sin entered the world. The "rules" in the bible are meant to demonstrate how broken we are and how much we need salvation and grace. We follow them because we want to be more like God, and that's how he is. We don't follow them because "Jesus will get us" if we disobey. God isn't vindictive. He's just. Bad things happen because of poor decision making, because God sometimes allows them to teach a lesson, and sometimes just because we live in an imperfect world and things go wrong. If we live according to the bible's standards, then we will be blessed (Deuteronomy 15), but we aren't promised a stress-free life, for two reasons: 1) It's impossible for us to keep from sinning. The only one who ever did it was Jesus. So, because we sin, we have to face the music. 2) Read John 16. Anyone who follows Jesus will have trouble because those who don't will persecute you. Maybe not physically or even obviously, but you will be treated differently and even negatively for your belief in Christ. Being a Christian isn't the ticket to the easy life. If you're looking for that, you signed up for the wrong religion. Following God is hard because it's counter-cultural and requires centering your entire life around someone other than you. The focus of being a Christian is not this life at all, but the next one. (And I'm not talking regeneration...) By God's grace, we're on this earth and have freedom to choose how we live it, but the choices we make now affect eternity.

God is like the Doctor in that he gives us the freedom to walk away peacefully or face the brunt of his plan to stop destruction. The option of peace is often not one we want to take, because it means we have to let go of our own schemes. (And, in light of God's omniscience and goodness, I think it's fair to say he knows better than we do.) However, it's the one he roots for, because he wants to save, not destroy. 

The choice is totally and completely yours to make. The question is, how much is your independence worth? Your life?

Until next time! May you always have milk for your souffles.

Katya