Skip to main content
I have been blessed to spend the last few days with my good buddy, Robert Allister "Bobby" Rose. One of our favorite things to do is watch Japanese anime. We began with a show called Yu Yu Hakusho that aired in the early 1990s. In some respects, it could be suited for a more youthful audience, but this is not always the case. (Indeed, most often not.) But the last couple of years has been spent with a show called, "Ruroni Kenshin," which translates to "Wandering Samurai." (I nerdily recall from a History Channel program that "ruroni" denotes a samurai that does not have a lord.) In any case, this is the plot: (basically)

A swordsman, Kenshin Himura, wanders the Japanese countryside near the dawn of the Meiji Era, (1878) hoping to find atonement for crimes committed as "Battosai the Manslayer," a legendary samurai in the service of the Tokugawa shogunate. Taken in by the gentle but fierce Kaoru Kamiya, Himura finds more than he bargained for, and all of them find, against their expectations, that they need each other to survive. Will Kenshin keep his vow to never kill again, and can he, in the face of all the threats to the new Japan, and his adopted family?

A prequel show called, "Samurai X" introduces us to Himura in his Battosai days, as well as explains the origin of his distinctive cross-shaped cheek scar. In addition, an epilogue movie set some 15 years after the conclusion of "Ruroni Kenshin" tells us what happened to Kenshin and Kaoru (and trust me, you'd be dying to know after watching the show). I was genuinely moved by the film.

One of the fascinating aspects of this story is the character development, especially of Kenshin and Kaoru. The ongoing struggle between Kenshin's growing attachments and his inability to forgive himself is a tension that deserves to be played out in live action film or on the stage. Why am I telling you all this? At one point, our protagonist says, (paraphrase) "There is nothing I could do to atone for all the sins I have committed." What most of the characters fail to realize (Kenshin included) is how true the statement is. Many rationalizations, explanations, and suggestions are offered, but the truth is clear. This declares to the Christian the glory and all-sufficiency of the work of Jesus Christ. Despite the well-known disagreements concerning the application of that redemption to believers, Christians can declare with one voice that Kenshin's responses to his sins, were they in the face of Christ's redemption, would be nothing short of pride.

Yet what a fascinating and sympathetic character he makes! He now spends his days in works of mercy and charity, and one could only guess that were he offered Christ plainly, he would take Him without a thought. The other part of this we ought to remember is that the character Kenshin Himura killed thousands of people in cold blood. If he finds a measure of reconciliation in ignorance, how much more can we expect to find, we who know of Christ and his love? I am blessed that I rejoice in Christ even when watching Japanese anime. Fair warning: There is ample animated blood throughout, and some aspects of this East Asian spirituality are incompatible with Christianity, and are doubtless in the service of the evil one in the real world. Still, it is entertaining, educational, and clarifies many spiritual truths for the discerning.

My interest as an amateur in things Japanese was actually renewed by Tom Cruise's "The Last Samurai," and led to us watching the show in the first place. It for example illustrates the Meiji Era prohibition against wearing swords, which also arises as a side-plot in "Ruroni Kenshin." In any case, the clash between tradition and modernity or postmodernity is intriguing in any time or place.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un