Tyrion and Disabilities

This guy is too cool.

Last week in class we talked rather extensively about disabilities and its implications within the Bible. For me, this was one of the more heated and active discussions in class and really had me wondering about the ethics surrounding this issue.

We watched a few short clips from documentaries and interviews of various people with disabilities and one in particular featured a dwarfed individual who, when born, was believed by the doctors to never have any kind of cognitive faculties or consciousnesses. Although his parents were hesitant, they kept the child and he grew to be a fully functioning intelligent individual. In his interview, he said that something that immediately struck me as Tyrion Lannister. He said that although his body could not do all that other "normal" people could, he still had his mind and that is what he focused on strengthening.

Now a bit on Tyrion Lannister. He is part of the prestigious Lannister family known for their riches, their looks, and their connection to royalty. His sister Cersei is the queen regent of the Seven Kingdoms and his brother (twin to Cersei) is the captain of the King's Guard and is known to be one of the greatest swordsman in all of the land. Their father, Lord Tywin Lannister, is extremely respected among all--and then there's Tyrion. He was born a dwarf. His birth also resulted in his mother's death who was loved by all, but especially loved by his father. Thus when he was born, he was considered monstrous and mangled. His father wanted nothing to do with him, but the last request of his beloved wife was to care for Tyrion, and so he did. He grew up knowing that he would never be a fearless knight or swordsman like his older brother, so instead he sharpened his wit. He consumed all books that came his way and learned of the histories behind the legends. Tyrion learned that the only way that he could survive in this harsh world would be to outsmart everyone else--and so he did. His lightning-quick wit and genuinely good intentions are what make him one of my personal favorite characters. Yes he desires power, but only to right the wrongs his family (particularly his nephew Joffrey) have created. Tyrion is a complex and refreshing character. He has been wronged by society and by his own family in some of the most severe ways, yet he continually hopes to better his world. I  am making him seem like some soft, sweet character--I know--but he definitely is not. He can be vulgar, his wit is acidic, and he often gives in to his more debase temptations--but that is what makes him such a great character. He is real and multi-dimensional. There are aspects of him that are far from positive, but in his core he is ultimately good and later proves to be an essential element in the development of the story.

Which leads me into our discussion on disabilities. There were several issues brought up in class and one of them was related to whether or not parents have the responsibility to terminate their pregnancy because their child has some kind of disability. The argument here is that their quality of life would be so poor that it would be irresponsible and cruel to allow them to live. Of course then the counter argument was how can we presume to know the quality of life that child may have? We then also asked if individuals with disabilities were also created in the image of God and what exactly makes us human. (Pretty tough stuff!) There were several other pressing issues mentioned which made for a fascinating discussion, but I think for the purpose of this post, I will stick with what I have mentioned above. Tyrion was considered a monster and nearly left for dead upon his birth and his father Tywin thought that he would never amount to anything, but was utterly wrong. The importance Tyrion has and the events he helped shape would not have happened if it wasn't for him. In a similar way, I think of the man mentioned earlier in this post who was believed to never have any rational thoughts or cognition in his life, but grew up to be a highly intelligent individual who touched other people's lives is a testament to the fact that we can not always know what kind of quality of life an individual may have. To assume so would also assume some kind of prophetic vision. I remember in that same video clip was a woman and her daughter with down-syndrome. At some point the mother says that she is blessed to have her daughter in her life and out of nowhere, her daughter says that she is blessed to just be in this world. It was beautiful and further the argument that we should not be the judges of one's quality of life.

We debated on whether or not people with severe disabilities were created in the image of God, and I think the answer is, yes. A classmate mentioned that she believed we all were created after the image of God, but that image was skewed after the fall and that disabilities may be a consequence of that. That may be, but that does not exclude them from the "coveted" list of who is a human being. Rather, it is just another manifestation of humanity as a whole. Furthermore when looked at in light of the New Testament, it seems that we are taught to love one another regardless of race, gender, disease or disability. Jesus himself dined with the outcasts of society. He loved them and so as Christians, is it not our duty to love our neighbor, even if that neighbor is someone whom we consider the outcast? Tyrion, through the love and mercy of his mother survived and grew up to be a character of great importance, without him the Seven Kingdoms would literally be in ruins. In a similar way, the people we saw in the video clips were individuals who have truly touched the lives of others and helped shape them in various ways. It is in those relationships that I think we find the ever elusive image of God.

Obeying Authority: King Joffery

Joffery Baratheon. Extreme dislike for this guy. Ugh.

I can't entirely remember when we last talked about authority and the Bible in class. I don't think it was explicitly discussed, but rather mentioned in either our gender roles or just war discussions. Regardless, I think it is a topic that deserves to be looked at in the realm of Game of Thrones.  

As per usual, I'll first start off this discussion with a brief biography of the character in question. Joffery Baratheon, son to the late King Robert Baratheon is heir to the throne of the Seven Kingdoms. He has only just reached his teen years in the book (although in the show he is about seventeen) and is maybe a shade or two away from being a complete sociopath. Growing up as a pampered prince, he didn't need to answer to anyone but the queen (who was generally happy to let him have his way). He learned to revel in the power he had over others and expected total obedience simply because it was his birth right. Take that sadistic teenager and place him on the throne and you have the perfect recipe for an utterly horrible tyrant. Once on the throne, he orders several people dead simply for his enjoyment. Oh, and did I mention he is also a complete coward? For a series that generally has excellent depth with its characters, Joffery is one of the few that's a little two dimensional. None the less, George R.R. Martin did an excellent job making a character that was so easy to hate. Regardless of his heinous crimes, he too still has a band of extremely loyal followers because, well, he is the king by birthright and by the will of the gods; thus, all his subjects are sworn to serve him. But when is it acceptable, if ever, to overthrow an unjust king?

The passage I want to analyze in conjunction with this particular part of Game of Thrones is Romans 13:1-5 in which Paul says, "let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience".

There is a similar doctrine in the world of Game of Thrones. The authority of the land is believed to be placed upon the throne by the gods thus making their rule absolute. To go against the king is to go against the gods themselves. What we see in the Bible is that it is important to listen to the authorities and follow them for they essentially seem to know whats good for society better than the common man. However, is it still God's will for us to follow authority that subverts individual prosperity and peace? No. I don't think that is the case in either Game of Thrones or the bible. Although we do not find any evidence towards this view point in this particular passage, we can see it throughout the entirety of Bible through the message of Jesus. He teaches peace, and treating all with love and dignity. A ruler that is not in conjunction with these teachings and one who, in Joffery's case, seems to wholly enjoy hurting others is not fit to rule. Furthermore, a king who orders his subject to go against the will of God is not one who will not be in power for very long. The Bible has had its fair share of tyrant kings, and each came to some kind of untimely doom. The same can then be applied to Joffery. Though there are several gods in the Seven Kingdoms, from what I have read, none seem to be in favor of injustice. A king or queen is meant to rule for the betterment of his or her people, not to fulfill their own selfish desires. Thus, when the people of the Seven Kingdoms realized what a terrible leader Joffery was, many of them decided to rebel and wage war on him and his tyranny. Like Jeroboam I, and Ahab, Joffery too eventually meets his end. 

Danaerys and Gender Roles

It's been some time since we discussed gender roles found within the Bible in class, but the conversation we had has stuck with me and immediately had me thinking of Danaerys once again.

As mentioned in the previous post, she was sold to Khal Drogo by her brother for an army. The beginning of her relationship with the Khal was one that you might expect--she was a young woman sold to a hard warrior who did not speak her language. She was afraid and alienated. However, through a series of events in which Daenarys shows her true strength, she gains the respect of her husband as well as the entirety of the Khalasar (the clan/tribe). In an extremely patriarchal society, this was practically unheard of. In being the Khaleesi (queen of the tribe), she was automatically given higher status than the women in the group, but not the men. The warriors of the Khalasar follow physical strength and power and one's prowess as a warrior, and since women were primarily caregivers, they fell much lower on the hierarchical scale. Danaerys however, was granted a great amount of power because the Khal loved and respected her. Although given a status of near equality to men, it was still given to her by the Khal and thus, after the rather tragic death of Drogo, many of the warriors in the Khalasar decide to leave--until Danaerys proves her strength. At the funeral pyre built to send Drogo into a Dothraki version of heaven, Danaerys proves that she has a strength like no other. With three petrified dragon eggs in her arms, she walks unafraid into the fire. Many watch in horror, expecting screams of agony but hear none. As the fire dies down, Danaerys rises from the ashes completely unharmed with three newly hatched dragon eggs draped across her body. It is here that she gains her first unfailingly loyal subjects because she displayed such great strength and bravery.

Danaerys's story is one of struggle and triumph. In the face of an extremely patriarchal society, Danaerys is able to rise above it all and eventually gain thousands of loyal followers. She was a woman and a leader, much like Junia and Phoebe were in the Bible. Our discussion on those two women was particularly interesting for me. When looking at the context through the lens of an egalitarian, it seems as though Junia and Phoebe were prominent women who had achieved leadership roles due to their personal merits. In Rom 16:7, Junia is named by Paul as an apostle of Jesus--a disciple of high rank, if you will. The very possibility of a woman holding such a high position in a society that, many have come to believe, did not allow women in leadership roles is astounding and can be likened directly to Danaerys's own journey. Both attained their level of leadership by displaying some kind of admirable virtue. For Danaerys, it was her bravery and the strength of her blood, for Junia--her faith and witnessing the resurrection of Christ. We also discussed Phoebe and the praise Paul had for her. From this perspective, Phoebe was a deacon of the church, a leader. She was also conceivably a benefactor who had greatly helped Paul's mission. Again, here is more evidence that a woman could have a place of power and though I am not sure exactly how she gained such a position, I am sure it had to happen through some kind of merit given that the society of that day was largely patriarchal and lines of succession passed to the eldest male. There was evidence of other women in prominent roles such as a prophetess, teachers, patrons, and fellow workers with Paul. Thus, like Phoebe, Junia, and the other known female leaders, Danaerys was able to rise above the patriarchal society that ruled and prove that she was capable of true leadership.