18 Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. 19 And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all (Act 19:18-19).
The
second season of Once Upon a Time has been flailing around for good stories.
Thus far, the best storyline involved a subplot in which Mr. Gold left
Storybrooke to go in search of his long lost and estranged son.
By his
own admission, Mr. Gold is a coward. He turned to black magic to protect his
son, but black magic made him evil and repellent to his son.
When he
devised the curse, he made sure he’d take his magical powers with him into
Storybrooke, in self-defense. His magic is stronger than Regina’s.
However,
when he leaves Storybrooke, he has to leave his magic behind. Magic exists in
Storybrooke, but not beyond the city limits. At this point he becomes very
fearful. He’s relied on magic for decades to feel safe. Now he’s just another
ordinary, vulnerable human being.
Incidentally,
the show euphemistically calls Regina the “Evil Queen.” Twenty years ago, she’d
be the “Wicked Witch.” But, of course, it’s politically incorrect to say bad
things about witches.
Although
this is fiction, it has a real-world counterpart. Pagans resort to defensive
and offensive witchcraft. When pagans became Christians, they had to renounce
their sorcery.
At one
level, that was obviously a good thing. They were emancipated from occult
bondage. However, by renouncing sorcery, Christian converts were disarming
themselves. At that point they had to trust in divine provision and protection.
Christianity left them very exposed. They could no longer resort to
fortune-telling and hexes to protect themselves or their friends and relatives. No longer could they pronounce
a malefice on their enemies.
They
become ordinary. Had to live by faith and prayer. Face persecution and
martyrdom.
Another
theme in Once Upon a Time is cheap grace. Because the series avoids Christian
theology, the screenwriters have to decide how we should judge evil characters.
This is framed in terms of whether bad people can change. Can villains like
Cora, Regina, Mr. Gold turn around? Do they still have a spark of goodness
within them?
Now, Mr.
Gold isn’t a pure villain. Rather, he’s a tragic character, a conflicted
character.
The
screenwriters seem to take the position that if Cora and Regina repent of their
evil deeds, then all is forgiven. This is despite the fact that Cora and Regina
are mass murderers. As long as they say they’re sorry and turn a new leaf,
other characters should let them put their past behind them. The victims don’t
matter.
Although
this is fictitious, it, too, has a real-world counterpart. Penal substitution
has come under increasing attack from the evangelical left (e.g. Joel Green,
Randal Rauser, Scot McKnight, Steve Chalke). I don’t think it’s coincidental
that contemporary attacks on penal substitution are coming from the Arminian
camp.
This is
a classic case of cheap grace: remission without redemption. Forgiveness
without vicarious blood atonement.
The
screenwriters create a moral dilemma for Snow White. Should she kill Cora? But
what if Cora still has some embers of goodness in her? The notion that Cora
should be die, not only because she is dangerous, but because she deserves to
die, doesn’t register with the screenwriters. The show has no category for sin.
At an
artistic level, the show also suffers from the fact that Snow White and Prince
Charming are central characters. But these are boring characters, played by
boring performers.
The
screenwriters try to spice up Snow White by making her a warrior princess, but
Jennifer Goodwin isn’t the kind of actress who can pull that off. There are
actresses who can convincingly play tough gals (e.g. Barbara Stanwyck,
Sigourney Weaver, Samantha Ferris), but Goodwin isn’t one of them. And Josh
Dallas is hardly a tough guy actor.
From what I can tell, McKnight holds to Penal Substitution.
ReplyDelete"He died instead of us (substitution); he died a death that was the consequence of sin (penal)."
See "Community Called Atonement" pp 113.
He seems to simply say that the gospel itself should not be reduced to penal substitution only.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/06/22/thoughts-on-penal-substitution/
DeleteDoes he fully endorse that view or is he just quoting it for effect?
ReplyDeleteI only wonder because McKnight's other book on Atonement (Jesus and his Death) makes a point of arguing from the gospels that Jesus perceived his own death as representative of his followers and thereby would lead to the avenging angel of pass over to pass over them despite their sinfulness. The research is pretty good and the conclusion is modest and solid. So it seems weird to me that McKnight would change his mind about it.
I guess I could just email him and ask.
But thank you for the link.
ReplyDelete