Reader Qiestion- Why the Old Testament?

Why read both the Old and New Testament? Since Jesus is never mentioned in the Old Testament, why don't Christians focus solely on the New Testament? -Pradeep
-----------------

Oooh, fun question! Thanks for asking it, Pradeep!

You're not the first to ask this question. I've had plenty of church members ask why I spend so much time in the Old Testament. They'll grant that the stories can be fun, but since they're not about JESUS, why waste our time? Save the stories for story time, and spend our learning time learning about Jesus?

Simply put, because if you are Christian, the Old Testament is just as much about Jesus as the New.

For starters, I'd like to get rid of the term "Old Testament." It IS how most people separate the two parts of the Christian Bible, but a bit offensive to the Jewish faith, as if we're calling ourselves Judaism 2.0 and they're the outdated version. Check out Lewis Black's particularly funny take on that below...

I've done a vlog on Biblical Creationism, so I won't go back into it here. I don't accept Lewis' dichotomy... the Hebrew Scriptures are as much my book as his... but he can be forgiven the misunderstanding, given the lingo often used. Why waste time in that rusty Old Testament when we have a groovy new one, right?

The reason is simple... there is a lot of great stuff in the Hebrew Scriptures. It may not mention Jesus, but it DOES mention his namesake... Jesus is an Anglicization of the Hebrew name Yeshua... which can also be Anglicized to Joshua! (Wasn't it nice of English people to Anglicize it twice? Wish they could have done that with the Marys.) Also, if you believe that Jesus is God (which, in case you didn't know, Christians DO) then the whole of Hebrew Scriptures is about Jesus... it's not like we think that Christ just started existing around the first century CE. Christ's story is a continuation of the one told in the Hebrew Scriptures. And like any real geek can tell you, there's a good story to be told in the Lord of the Rings, but if you don't also read the Silmarillion, you're not getting the whole picture.

Besides, good research sort of demands understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures in order to truly follow the stuff us Christians added to the canon. The New Testament quotes the Hebrew Scriptures SO OFTEN that some of my Hebrew professors referred to the Bible as "The Hebrew Scriptures with a longish appendix."

In short (too late) we don't ignore the Hebrew Scriptures because they are a integral part of our faith. The fact that they predate Jesus' human life on Earth only helps, because it paints the context in which Christ came, and has a lot of good things to teach us.

If you don't believe me, ask the Jews!

Reader Question- Is Ebola God's punishment? And how do we react to disaster language?

Recently I have heard several people claim that the imminent Ebola outbreak the US is facing is a sign that God is judging our nation for departing from him. Usually they also cite 2 Chronicles as the answer to the problem. So, two questions. First, does God deal with things like national sin today, or was that something he just did with ancient Israel? And second, how should we (Christians, Bible-readers) draw the line between recognizing a generally applicable truth, and "claiming a promise" that isn't ours to claim?

--Sarah

-------------------

Thanks for writing in, Sarah. Yeah, I've heard the same claim. And it's full of crap. 

I sat on this one a bit to let that point really drive home... with no new confirmed Ebola cases in the US since September according to the CDC, we can continue to say with pride and confidence that more Americans have been Batman than have had Ebola. More people have been married to Kim Kardashian than have died with it in the US. And more Americans have BEEN Kim Kardashian than have died of it in this outbreak.

Forget Ebola. We need to look into the eschatological significance of Batman and Kim Kardashian. 

So if Ebola was God's punishment for our drifting away from God, does that mean we have gotten back with the program? Yay, holy America? Not sure any of the pastors would say that.

Let's just say what the divine Ebola fear-mongering was, for real, and accept it: it was taking a spectre from pop culture and using it to try to scare people into toeing the line. It had nothing to do with any divine message, Biblical or otherwise. It had to do with exactly one thing... fear is an effective motivator.

You don't prep a nation for war by encouraging thoughtful contemplation of the enemies culture, you demonize the enemy and make them a bogeyman to terrify the populace, until any action is acceptable over allowing the enemy to continue as they have. You don't argue for "family values" by educating positive practices, instead you pick the "destroying our families" du jour and terrify people of what it will do. From fear of disease to fear of immigrant to fear of poverty to fear of change to fear of feminists playing video games to fear of republicans in large groups our society is practically defined, as a whole and in its niches, by what we fear. 

So people got scared of Ebola, and instead of thinking, "Gosh, this kind of panic could actually exacerbate the problem, better calm people down," some Pastors thought, "Gee, I bet I could get an easy sermon out of this! Maybe even TWO!"

Someone asked once why I hate Christianity. I don't think that held water, but you may have a point if you insinuate that I don't trust other pastors much, outside of a few very specific examples.

To the second part of your question, another lazy homiletical device (and another artifact of the emphasis placed on Biblical literalism) is the desire to take a story that has little relevance to a certain audience and try to apply it to them directly.

For instance, I've heard anger at political enemies justified through the use of psalms. Now don't get me wrong, there are some VERY angry Psalms, and they DO teach us that God understands our feelings of anger. But those Psalms were written by people whose nation had been brutally and militarily oppressed by powers whose lack of basic humanity had lead to horrible, horrible acts.

If you have lived most of your life north of the Rio Grande in North America, then odds are you have exactly zero context for the anger being described.

Now, you might be quite angry at those liberals with their unholy ways, or those conservatives with their backward ways, but either way, your anger was not theirs, and claiming it as such is a gross misrepresentation of the text. It would be like sitting down with people who are starving to death and complaining that the pizza place forgot to give you extra pepperoni. Sure, God forgives, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't knock it off.

I feel similarly for people who use revolutionary language in a Twitter Hashtag discussion, or in a Facebook thread.

The inability to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between inconveniences you experience and those experienced by others leads to hugely problematic attempts to co-opt language, biblical or otherwise, that was never meant for you. Can we as affluent North Americans learn lessons from what others go through, absolutely.

But if your instinct is to look at, say, a Holocaust survivor, and say; "Man, I know exactly how you feel," then you have missed pretty much every available point.

Reader Question- Who is your hero?

I've been wondering who Pastors look up to. Let me guess: Jesus? But who else? -Mandy
---------

Thanks for writing in, Mandy. And, well, yeah, we do look up to Jesus a fair bit. (I, for one, would love to be able to walk into a temple and flip tables and whip people and still be known as the Prince of Peace.)

I've actually been asked, on several occasions, who my "model" for ministry is, and the answer has always been the same; my dad. He's the baseline... when a situation arrives that I need to make some kind of decision on in the church, my first thought is nearly always what Dad would do... and then I either do that thing, or go another way. Our two ministries look quite different from one another, but the fact of the matter is that he is my model.

Which will be nice for him to hear, I am sure, if he is reading this, but doesn't give a lot of information to you all. So I guess I need a high profile answer.

I'm actually not looking to have a Jesus-like ministry. I do try to emulate Christ in how I live my life, but as I have said in previous entries, I am not savior, and not seeking to be one. Christ's ministry did things I do not aspire to do. So if I had to pick an answer that you all would know AND was possibly attainable...

I'd go with the Reverend Fred Rogers.

You really don't need me to sell Mr. Rogers to you, do you? He's a treasure of modern media, But more than that, he's the perfect example of the kind of preacher I want to be. Not necessarily by medium, but by attitude. He loved people without reservation, without worrying that his love was enabling. He taught acceptance over separation, taught curiosity over fear. He went, without hesitation, to the dark places we all assume children can't go to, and showed them simple truths of life, worked to demystify things like hospitals, dentists offices, and even death.

He wasn't the sort who sought to censor. Instead, he worked to offer positive alternatives to the negatives he saw. He vigorously supported the role of media in education, and approached new media, like video games, with the same positively curious attitude that he modeled in all aspects of his life.

He taught people that they were valuable while reminding them that others were, too. The show wasn't about you... it was about your neighborhood. And it was a nice place to be.

If I can teach love over hate, curiosity over fear, enthusiasm over pessimism, and hope over despair, then I believe I will have done my job as a Pastor.

Reclaiming Sodom

The story of the destruction of Sodom has become one of the more uncomfortable stories in the Bible. Often hailed as a dark foreboding of what comes of failing to be "tough on sin," it is a flagstone of the religious homophobic movement and used to justify atrocious behavior. On the other hand, it is also uncomfortable in that it takes what we dare to call a "loving God" and shows an act of mass murder by that God. The fact that some will call it justice, rather than murder, only drives home the homophobic point; it only makes sense if you assume that homosexuality is a sin, one worth killing someone over.

A point very at home at Westboro Baptist, but one even your more conservative Christians would probably stumble over, because even if you do believe homosexuality is a sin, punishment on that scale does not seem to fit the crime for most people. And so the story of the destruction of Sodom falls by the wayside, ignored except to be held up as an example of just how ridiculous the Bible is, anyway.

But I feel this is all based on a misreading of the story of Sodom which is a story, I believe, that actually does represent an important point about Justice.

We first hear about the wickedness of Sodom from God in the story, as God says that he has heard the "outcry" about the wicked city. Discussing this with Abraham, God says that the city will be dealt with appropriately. Abraham then goes to bat for the city with the Lord, asking for the city to be spared if there are fifty good people there. Then Forty-five. Then Forty. Finally Abraham gets the Lord to agree to spare the city if ten people who are righteous can be found.

The precise "wickedness" of Sodom is then shown, as the angels sent by God arrive in the city and are met by Lot, who immediately begs them to come with him, rather than go to the city center. His fears are explained when the "men of the city" arrive and demand that Lot hand the strangers over, so that they can have sex with them.

This is an example of a particularly vile cultural habit of the time, whereby out-of-region strangers would be raped when they came to a city. Like with how we understand rape today, it wasn't about sex, but about power, a way to claim dominion over the one being raped. And so we see the "wickedness" of Sodom was not Homosexuality... but rape. God's judgement is given, and Lot is given time to escape with his family before Sodom is destroyed.

But what about the ten righteous that Abraham was promised? We never hear about the search, or about the rubric used to determine righteousness. The story says that the whole city came out to get a hold of the strangers, but presumably they couldn't all have planned to rape them. So why does the city still get wiped clean with fire and brimstone?

This is open to interpretation, but here is mine: Other than Lot, no one spoke out against it. You can make the #notallsodomites claim all you want, but when the masses came to rape the strangers, no one besides Lot stood against them, and so the city was judged... and destroyed.

It still sounds harsh by our standards, I know. What about the women, what about the children? But that's getting too literal, missing the point of the story. We're not dealing in history but in a mythology where, even IF based on real events, the lesson would be valued over actual events every time, and the lesson is this:

A civilization where rape is not only practiced, but implicitly condoned, is a civilization that, according to moral authority of the Bible, deserves to be destroyed. Even if not everyone is participating, if people cannot even bring themselves to object, for whatever reason, then they are ALL a part of a bad system, and all included in the judgement on it.

Don't get me wrong, the story is still problematic. It's from another time, far more interested in collective sin than personal, and the attitude towards Lot's daughters (both before and after the destruction of the city) is awful. But that's not the point of the story, any more than the fact that wolves are endangered is the point of Red Riding Hood.

This is the story I want to tell, the version of Sodom that, instead of being useful to condemn a very specific (and already marginalized) part of our population, is used to to point the finger at ALL of us, and show us not how great we are, but rather, how much work there is yet to do. I want to reclaim Sodom, and change the definition of Sodomy, to where Sodomy is not about who you choose to have sex with, but rather, the act, or implicit condoning, of rape.

And then say, in a clear voice, that the practitioners of Sodomy have been judged, and if they haven't been destroyed yet, it may only because there exists a handful of people who speak out against them. But still, wouldn't it be great if the same fervor some people currently have against homosexuals went, instead, against Rapists?

Reader Question- Should Creation be taught in Schools?

I went to a small Christian school where my science teacher taught Creationism alongside Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, not as counter-points, or differing theories, but alongside one another. I thought it was interesting. Is there a reason that this couldn't work in public schools? -James

----------------

Thanks for writing in, James.

And to answer your question bluntly, no.

Private Christian Schools will do what they want to do, that's kind of the point. Were I in charge of your school, I wouldn't have the science teacher teaching Creationism. Presumably there is a religious studies teacher there who could handle that aspect of things. Let the religious teacher handle the faith stuff, let the Science teacher teach, you know, actual science, stuff that can be tested and experimented on.

And when it comes to Public Schools, NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

I really don't want to smack you down here, James, but that would be an absolutely HORRIBLE idea. And here is why: if religious concepts were to be taught in Public Schools, then Politicians would be the ones setting the curriculum. They do a bad enough job meddling with concepts like history or science, but add faith to the mix? Can you imagine the massive mess that would be?

As a religious leader, the last thing in the WORLD I want is the religious education of ANYONE handled by state-level politicians. It would be a wreck. There is NO way that goes well. Because who's faith? Mine? Yours? The guy who talks faith and family values to get votes and then flies to Maui with his mistress?

So many people of faith SAY that they want faith taught in schools, but what they have in mind is THEIR faith being taught. (Is it sad or funny that these are often the same people who claim that teachers unions are horrible and that teachers should be armed? I mean, we'll call these teachers low life scum to score political points, then on the same platform claim that they should be armed and teach faith values. Conservatives are confusing.) They don't consider that faith, when taught in a classroom, is hugely affected by the one teaching. You can't NOT bring in personal biases.

So no, I don't think Creation, or any faith concept, belongs in the Public School, and even in faith based schools, I think the curriculum should be carefully considered, not for the sake of proper theology, but to be sure that what you are doing is education, rather than indoctrination.

And when a Politician pushes for faith to be taught in schools in MY hearing? My response is; "You stick to Civics. Let the teachers teach, in their respective fields.

Story Time- Deborah

From time to time, someone claiming the the title of "Reverend" will make some claim about female leadership, about how women are not to be leaders in the church. They'll often use various scriptures to make their point, and then say something about ineffability of scripture to make their points unassailable. 

But they have a problem. A problem many of them would rather not think about. A problem named Deborah. A problem that takes everything they think they know about Biblical Leadership and blows it to smithereens.

Deborah is a judge, her story told in the Book of Judges. Now in Judges, there is a pattern. The people of God are oppressed by some outside power. They cry out for aid and God responds by sending them a leader, known as a Judge. Judges were a combination of Priest, Prophet, Adjudicator, and Military Leader, but the position was not handed down to ones children. Of course, with so much power resting in an individuals hands, they usually came with a downside, and would lead the people of Israel into a sinful way, and before long the people would be worse off than they started. This happened over and over and over again.

With one, and only one, exception. And that would be, you guessed it, Deborah. Deborah's story has no flaws, no fall. At no point does she lead Israel astray, or abuse her power. 

While Deborah is Judging, Israel is under the thumb of Sisera, a military leader commanding 900 Chariots, which were sort of the ultimate in military technology at the time. Deborah calls to Barak, a tribal leader, and commands him to lead the warriors of Israel into battle. 

Barak says, flat out, that he will not do so unless she rides with him. She warns that this will mean that his own honor is lessened, and he is fine with that. 

THINK for a second about what that says about everyone involved. In a community where female prominence (let alone leadership) is so rare that even learning a woman's NAME in the Bible is a bit of a rare occurrence,  this military leader, with twenty thousand warriors under his command, will NOT go into battle without Deborah with him. He knows it will lessen his glory and he does not care: he wants her there. There is no doubt, even to the man who brings with him the military muscle, of who is really in charge.

So she goes. And they win. Sisera's forces are scattered, and he personally runs and hides, only to be killed while in hiding by the wife of one of his underlings, who promptly hands him over to the victorious Israelites. 

Deborah is, by any objective measure, the finest of the Judges, and one of the greatest leaders in the Bible's story. She gets two chapters in that book, one that tells a VERY truncated version of her story, and one that is a song about her. You can tell that the editor was a bit embarrassed about having her, but even the most sexist of the Biblical editors wasn't able to remove her story completely.

So if anyone claims that women are not meant to lead, then they are clearly, objectively, wrong. Because Judges were appointed by God, and God clearly appointed Deborah, who would go on to not only lead, but lead without any drawbacks... a figure of such importance that even editors who had every reason to do so were not able to remove her story completely.

So if the Biblical record is at all important to you, remember Deborah's story. And if anyone tells you that, based on the Bible, women should not lead? Point them to the Book of Judges, chapter 4.

And tell them that they are wrong.

Demanding More of Clergy

So yesterday I drove to a hospital I hadn't visited before. They had some really great parking spots reserved for clergy (SWEET) and after parking there I wondered if I needed to register for it. I had to ask like twenty people who you'd think would know about that before I could get a definitive answer from the head of security, who's answer was no, because how could you expect Clergy to keep track of required parking stickers or indicators or whatever?

I laughed about that but in retrospect it bugged me a lot, because it echoed a sentiment that has become fairly prevalent in our culture... very low expectations when it comes to clergy.

I've done some "live-tweeting" (can you call it that when it's done on Facebook?) of times in which I have been visibly clergy, like when I am wearing a clerical collar. It's often amusing how much people get thrown off by it, but it also reveals assumptions about the clergy that I don't like.

It's like I'm a walking anachronism, a relic of a by-gone time somehow transported to this strange future. People assume that I don't understand much of what is going on and go out of their way to be helpful. Which is nice of them, but I do, in fact, know how to operate an electronic device, or hail a cab, or find my airport terminal.

(Well, okay, I DO get lost easily, but did so LONG before I became clergy, all right?)

Now that is all funny, harmless, and a decent way to check the ego, and clerical egos often need to be checked. But there is another side to it as well. It is one thing when people assume I can't handle new-fangled technology like a touch screen. It is quite another when people assume that I have no stake in the world I live in.

I see signs of it all the time, people who are surprised when I am up on current events, or political movements, or the realities of love, hate, pain, death, and suffering. There is a belief in clergy detachment where I am supposed to be separated from all that, again the walking anachronism parroting trite phrases regardless of context and existing in a world that no longer exists, perhaps NEVER existed, in order to do... something.

I'm not entirely certain what that something is, but often I feel as though people assume I am paid simply to be, a reminder of that bygone (or perhaps fictional) time, a museum piece that reminds people of a romanticized era. Go on, say a prayer, it's like what Grandma used to say...

We see it echoed in pop culture ALL the time. The religious figures in John Green's The Fault in Our Stars are, to me, infuriatingly incompetent, but everyone just seems to roll with it because, hey, what else did you expect? Someone has to say these words, but we would never expect that person to actually understand the person they talk about or to, right?

And so clergy just go around, doing what they do, and people just short of shrug and roll with it. What did you expect? They're just a museum piece! So long as they don't physically harm someone (or, most infuriatingly, even if they do) we just let them do what they do, say what they say, and either smile at the pleasant reminder or frown at the unpleasant one. But it's not like it actually matters, right?

Wrong.

I think we need to demand more of clergy, yes, even you, my atheists.

Your departed loved one was worth knowing, and the person doing their funeral should at least make the effort to ask. People deserve respect, and no faith background justifies treating them like dirt. The world we live in matters, and if they believe that their background matters, then they need to be pushing it towards the future, not lamenting the departure of an idealized past.

I don't know if we clergy marginalized ourselves, or if others did it for us. I don't know at what point we stopped being leaders and acquiesced to being memorials, it's likely a chicken/egg argument. Probably it was mutual, with the world telling us it we no longer mattered and us accepting it because, hey, at least we got to keep collecting paychecks, and life is easier when no one expects anything of you beyond not harming someone.

Is there another field where you can literally be paid to not do harm?

Throughout History, Clergy of all religions and creeds have been some of the greatest movers and shakers in the world. We have a unique perspective and an ability to bring together disparate peoples in pursuit of a whole bigger than the sum of its parts. If we are going to continue to exist, we should be trying to make our world better.

And if we're just going to be museum pieces, probably better that we did something else actually useful to someone. Like ditch digging.

Grading Batman

In a recent video I did in response to John Green, I spent some time defending Batman in his general direction. (No evidence that he himself ever saw it, but thanks to all who shared it at him!) It was a bit inspiring and so I sat down to BE Batman again by replaying the video games Batman: Arkham Asylum, and Batman: Arkham City. And while I was playing them, while I always enjoyed myself, a realization struck me…

Sometimes? Batman can be a bit of a jerk. And even stupid in how he relates to others.

Now of course, that was one particular version of Batman, and that got me thinking… we (and by we I mean the Internet) have this understanding of Batman as a singular fictional character, when really Batman is many fictional characters as understood by many different writers, artists, and actors. So I decided to take the ones I was aware of and really look at them, and see if any of those characters actually deserved some of the criticism directed at them.

Adam West Batman: There is a bit of revisionist history out there that would like to think that this version made Batman camp, but in reality this understanding of Batman was pretty accurate to the Silver Age version of the Caped Crusader, with a focus on outlandish gadgets and toys rather than brooding and detective work.

So how was he for Gotham? Pretty good, actually. His villains rarely (if ever) actually managed to kill anyone, and even stolen goods were usually returned at the end of the day. We didn’t see much in the way of charitable work by this Bruce Wayne (there was some implied by different affairs he went to, but you rarely saw much actual giving) so this version of Batman could perhaps be accused of being more about upholding the status quo then bringing about any lasting change to Gotham. That said, of all the versions of Gotham city, this would undeniably be the most pleasant to live in, with minimal poverty and violent crime. Other than a wave of colorful thieves and an equally colorful thief catcher, it looks a lot like Southern California. I give Adam West’s Batman a B.

Tim Burton’s Batman: For a kid who had always looked forward to when the TV show would be on, 1989’s Batman, starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker, was a serious paradigm shift, and that shift was taken even further for Batman Returns. Suddenly the Caped Crusader was the Dark Knight, scary, ominous, brooding. He lived in a Gotham that was dark, poverty stricken, and full of villains that were more than capable of killing. The movie and its sequel undeniably launched Batman into a new realm of cultural significance and proved that superhero movies did not require Superman in order to succeed.

Sadly, great for the franchise though the movie may have been, this version of Batman may have been the worst when measured by heroism. It is Batman’s very presence that inspires Joker to his murderous heights, and short of punching the occasional thug, it isn’t entirely clear what Batman’s long term plan was, or if he even had one. His plan isn’t justice, but revenge, as is made brutally clear by punishments given to the criminals who cross his path, along with a clear willingness to kill. With charity work as Bruce Wayne practically invisible (again save for some parties thrown) there is very little to redeem this version of Batman from being a vigilante who can afford a fancy bulletproof outfit and crazy toys… which in the end, makes his dividing line from his enemies fuzzy to the point of invisibility. I give him a D.

Joel Schumaker’s Batman: The Dark Knight from Batman Forever and Batman and Robin is credited, in most geek circles, as the worst of all of them. Shumaker’s return to the camp roots of the Batman have been blamed for the apparent death of the series until it was saved by the Christopher Nolan reboot, derided as being too cartoony, too colorful, too stupid. But how was this Batman at being Batman?

In short? Better than the Burton Batman by basically every measurable metric. Not only do his foes have a greatly reduced bodycount, we actually get to see Bruce Wayne not only as a much more active philanthropist (enough so that Commissioner Gordon thinks it makes sense to take a young Dick Grayson to him), but also as an Employer of someone other than Alfred, head of the Wayne Corporation, who insists that a deceased employee’s family receive full benefits despite an apparent suicide that is not covered by the health plan. Beyond even that? This Batman actually GROWS. From his acceptance of his dual identity in Forever to his development as a team player in Batman and Robin, Schumaker’s Batman shows a willingness to admit to, and overcome, personal flaws and obstacles… something more or less unprecedented elsewhere. Basically an improved version of the Adam West character; which earns him a B+.


The Dark Knight Returns: Credited alongside Watchmen for launching the “serious” side of modern comic books (as well as, it should be said, giving credence to the graphic novel as literature), The Dark Knight Returns featured an older, retired Batman who had lost his connection with a Gotham that had spiraled out of control, and in a world where Superheroes had been driven underground. When he takes up the mantle again, with a new Robin at his side, the world has to decide whether or not it has a place for a Dark Knight, while world events spiral even further out of control, until it is unclear if there is any way to live in the world WITHOUT a hero like Batman.

Which is odd, because as Batmen go, this one is decidedly not great. Villified psychologists call him insane, but it almost seems as if the writer agrees with them, with the Batman behaving in the beginning as a raging Id inside of the aging Bruce Wayne. Where Shumacher’s Batman grew, this one regresses, eventually taking up the mantle of Gang Leader. His reemergence brings back certain Supervillians, and all philanthropy has apparently ceased, with the comic book telling us flatly that any attempt to fix Gotham as Bruce Wayne had failed, with the publicly apparent Death of Bruce as well as the actual death of his conscience/butler Alfred paving the way for the future. He has his moments of clarity, but when the book itself makes such a strong case for Batman’s futility, it is hard to argue with. He gets a C, tops.

Batman, Year One: Now THIS guy is interesting. Before DC took to rebooting their characters every other year, this was part of a reboot effort that was a shining success compared to some other failures. Batman, it was discovered, did not need a complete reimagining, if anything, our world had become more suited to this kind of hero than it had originally been. A new coat of paint, and a new telling of his origin, was all it took.

And the result was a good one. Here we see a young Bruce Wayne struggling to become Batman, building an identity. We don’t really see any big picture stuff (Bruce lives into a perception as a careless playboy) but we see how deeply he cares about the people he fights and fights for, his desperation to not be a killer, to protect anyone he can. We also see the beginnings of his relationship with James Gordon, the start of a partnership that lends legitimacy to what otherwise might be seen as vigilantism. He’s not perfect, but also not meant to be. This is a developing work in progress, and that earns some bonus points. B-, with a bullet.

Dick Grayson: The death of Bruce Wayne was false, and short lived, but while it did we were treated to Dick Grayson wearing the cowl, with Damian Wayne (Bruce’s Son) becoming Robin. It created a delightful change of pace, with a fun-loving, lighthearted Batman mirrored by a brooding Robin.

And you know what? It worked. Dick got the benefit of being unblemished by questions of whether or not Batman should exist… in the story where he took the cowl in the first place, it had been made obvious that Gotham needed a Batman. All the old baggage was left with Bruce, allowing Dick a clean slate. He also didn’t have to play the “wastrel Playboy” line. Folks knew who he was, Bruce’s adopted son, and so he didn’t have to be Bruce. And he did a good job. A-.

Christopher Nolan’s Batman: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises marked the return to domination of the Batman, boasting a “gritty realism” to divorce the movies from the Schumaker era. The trilogy embraced a timeline of batman, from his origins in Begins to the height of his heroism in The Dark Knight to the end of his career in Rises. Definitely a new approach, with a Batman who, at the very least, cannot be accused of simply seeking to preserve the status quo.

So how good is this Batman at Batmanning? Well… not bad. His motives are strong, as is his dedication to not killing. He clearly values charitable work, and is willing to take huge monetary losses if he isn’t sure of the safety of a product. All of that said, when this Batman makes mistakes, they are devastating on a scale that the others can barely even scratch. And, like with The Dark Knight Returns, it’s hard to escape the idea that Batman himself is primarily responsible for Gotham’s dive into Madness. A solid B, but I can’t grade him higher.

Arkham Videogame’s Batman: The guy who inspired this post, this is the Batman from the video games that, more than any other, made you really FEEL like Batman. So much fun to play, from creeping through the claustrophobic environs of Arkham Asylum to the Dystopian Arkham City. And yet…

I cannot get past the feeling that Rocksteady, while believing that it would be lots of fun to be Batman, don’t think he’s very effective at, well, anything. How many people do you “save” in the Asylum only to see their corpses littering the ground later? Massive death tolls in both games. And worse, Batman frequently manages to do precisely the wrong thing with various supervillains he’s forced to work with, leading to catastrophic results. I can’t overemphasize how good the games are, but sadly, he gets a poor Batman score. C-

Animated Batman- Batman: The Animated Series, kickstarted the DCAU into hyper prominence that no Marvel property has even scratched on the small screen. And of its heroes, Batman is clearly without peer. He manages to control the death count of his villains, works solidly in charitable foundations, seeks to understand both his peers and his enemies. He’s an undisputed leader of the Justice League, a solid father figure to his various protégés, strikes a perfect balance between frightening and funny.

He is, and will probably always be, THE Batman by which all others are judged. A+

Beware the Echo Chamber (When votes don't go your way.)

So there are a lot of people who are upset, currently, with the state of politics in the US. (This will be my understatement of the year.) They might even be particularly upset with the result of the votes from yesterdays general election. I have to admit, I didn't like a lot of them either, even though plenty of people saw them coming.

All of us, regardless of political affiliation, will lose these things from time to time. And there are ways of handling it well, and ways of handling it poorly.

For instance, in todays political atmosphere, with blogs and comment boards, it is easy for the defeated party to create an echo chamber where their adherents become increasingly embittered and angry, and that anger is used as a resource to blunt current initiatives and power future elections. It's an incredibly powerful tool... and a highly, highly dangerous one.

We got to see it most clearly with our current Presidential Administration; the echo chambers calling him the worst president ever even before he took office, calls of "socialism" from all sides, so much anger and rabid hate. It was hugely disruptive to his administration, with people looking to tap into the echo chambers blocking him at every turn.

It hurt them, too. Echo chambers are great for pep rallies and groundswell but horrible for reasoned debate or analysis. Obama made quite a few legitimate mistakes over the course of his first term but... so what? It wasn't like the Republicans could oppose those mistakes any louder than they were already opposing everything else he did. And when the Elections came the Echo Chambers were certain of a win, even predicting a landslide... and never saw their sizeable loss coming, and were left staring, shocked, after it happened.

It was actually kinda funny. But it isn't representative of one party, or ideology. The Echo Chamber is a powerful new force in politics and if you find yourself saying; "Well MY party would never do that..." Then you're kidding yourself.

For the next few days or even weeks, it's okay to gripe and be disappointed. But beware of the Echo Chambers, especially if they appeal to you. Remember that, whatever "side" you are one, there are people working in the opposition who are legitimately trying to help the country. And while they are running it, you can do your country a whole lot of good by not being a voice from the Echo Chambers, but a true voice of opposition, who demands debate and compromise over angry yelling.

Be awesome to others, even those who have defeated you, even those you consider opponents. Don't look for the demons the Echo Chambers promise, but instead look for the human being underneath the politician, who is working hard and trying to do their best.

In the end, they may disappoint you. It happens. But at least you will have remained human, rather than letting the powers you align with to turn you into a rabid attack animal for their own expedience.

Reader Question- Faith in Politics

With the Election and everything, I was wondering. What do you think about combining faith and politics? Does your faith affect how you vote? -Amber
-----------------

I think answering this question is a great way to get in trouble with some Nerdfighters, but oh well, let's run with it, shall we? Thanks for writing in!

I've heard, several times now, someone posit that "personal faith has no place in politics." Or, "believe whatever you want, just don't try to force it on other people." It tends to be a fairly popular position in the internet circles where I move, and I certainly understand the sentiment; in a society where supposedly faith based initiatives have hurt quite a lot of people, the urge to try to cut those motives out of politics entirely certainly appeals on multiple levels.

So I get the idea in theory. In practice, however, it is patently ridiculous.

The statement "personal beliefs have no place in politics" is itself a personal belief. Our beliefs are who we are. We love talking about telling people to do the research and make the "right" choice but in the end, regardless of who you are, you're going to have to make a choice between values.

Is it more important to be financially sound, or to care for the poor? What programs can best sustain both? How much right does the government have to our money, and who gets to decide how that money is spent?

These are all questions of relative value that lack any classic "right" answer. And so we make value judgments, based on our experiences and personal beliefs. And any faith you have WILL effect that. It's a part of who you are. Attempting to cut it out will be a silly mental exercise at best, and attempted in true faith (pun absolutely intended) will leave you with a final result that just feels wrong.

Yay, Democracy?

In general, people who take this position are often not thinking about how your faith informs your views of money. It's the so called "family values" questions, questions of who gets to sleep with who, and who has final say over a woman's body, that we're really talking about.

I also wish that very specific religious organizations would quit trying to throw their weight around over those issues. I'm certainly glad that we're not a theocracy. But just because I disagree with how some people vote doesn't mean I get to change the rules of "how" they vote. We don't get to tell people how to think. All we can do is try to change their minds.

Like it or not, faith and religion are person formers... they shape how we think and how we react. They form a part of who we are, even if only in our rejection of them. Attempting to ignore that part of yourself while voting will only end with a result you aren't happy with. So don't do it. Be wholly yourself as you make your choice, and then stand by it.

And this leads to the other side of the coin.

If someone, ANYONE, tells you that, because of your faith, you HAVE to vote a certain way? They are 100% wrong.

I'm always at my most Democrat around election season. Why? Because somehow, someway, word is out on the call lists that I am a pastor. So come election season, Democrats call and ask for my vote, while Republicans call assuming that they already have my vote, and ask me to stump for them.

Nuh uh.

The people who use religious affiliation as a voter mandate are in the same boat as the folks who say that your faith should be excised from the process entirely. Religious people disagree. (You may have noticed this.) Being a religious person does not remove your ability to think and function, and people who try to use it to do so are doing you no favors.

So when you vote, do your research and go with your own personal values. "Well, I only think that because I am religious," doesn't hold water. Neither does "Well, I'm religious, so I have to do this."

What you have to do is THINK, and FEEL, and go with what you believe at the end of the day. I may not like what you decide, but so long as you made an actual decision, rather than following a script someone tried to hand you before hand? Then you did it right.

Now go vote.