teleios and the time vortex: how Doctor Who shaped my faith

Part One: The Time Vortex 

"People don't understand time. It's not what you think it is." --the Doctor

When I fell in love with this man, I didn't expect it to shape so much of the way that I thought about life, and certainly not the way I thought about God or His presence in my life.

When you start traveling with the Doctor, you spend a lot of time being thoroughly confused. You experience it episode by episode, and for a lot of it, you really aren't sure what is going on. Who is this guy, and what is that telephone box thing (and why does it say "police"?) and why is he telling that blonde girl to run!, or saying "I'm so so sorry" to those aliens? [1] And once you kind of get the premise, you then have to wrap your mind around the concept of Time Travel, and how you can be in the past-but-actually-the-present, and watch the world exploding in the very-distant-future but still call your mom in 2005, and the whole thing is more than a little complicated. But slowly, the more you watch and the less you try to understand, the easier it becomes not only to follow the story, but also to comprehend the concepts and theories behind it. Time travel--at least in Doctor Who lore--doesn't confuse me as much as it did, because I sat back, shut up, and let it happen. And surprisingly, my brain eventually caught up with the rest of me. [2]

I am sure you're wondering what any of this has to do with God. So let me put Doctor Who on hold and catch you up to where I am.

Growing up, I was taught that God, who is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), has a plan for my life. He knows how many hairs I have on my head [3] and what I will be when I grow up (if that ever, you know, happens). Verses like Jeremiah 29:11 [4] are ingrained in my understanding of God: He has a plan for me, and that means He's taking care of me no matter what.

Alongside accepting that God Has A Plan, however, I also had the ingrained knowledge that we were given free will, and the ability to choose between good and evil. The fact that he gave us options [5] proves that we are allowed to think for ourselves. Being Lutheran meant that my salvation was not dependent on my choices [6], but mostly, in the practical sense, it just meant that that I had the freedom to make my own decisions.

But then high school happened, and the topic of free will vs predestination came into play. This was the first time I noticed the disparity between the two concepts: if God has a plan for me, does that mean I don't get a choice in what I do? Am I just following the script and having delusions of decision-making? But if I have free will, then how does it make sense that God has a plan for me? Unless God knows what I am going to decide (because omniscience) and then creates his plan around my decisions... but that would imply that it's not God's plan but rather my own. And most of all: if I do have free will, and God does have a plan, then what happens if I make the free-will decision to do something that's NOT in the plan? Won't that screw me over? Do I just keep muddling through, hoping that all my following decisions are the right ones, until I can get back on track? ...what happens if I don't ever get back on track?

It's all very confusing. And really stressful if you already have a hard time making decisions in the first place.

What college do I go to. What do I major in. Should I break up with my boyfriend. Should I go out with this other guy. What classes do I take next semester, and what classes do I give up in order to take them. The questions are endless, and it was through many lengthy discussions with my friend Kim that I (we) finally arrived at the conclusion/philosophy "you can't lose." It was based primarily on Romans 8:37-39 [7], and the idea that no matter what happens in life--which would logically include the decisions we make--God will still love us. We can't screw up past what He can fix. Obviously we shouldn't be going off and doing whatever we want, because that's dangerous and stupid, but in the end, even if we make mistakes, He's still got our back, and we still win (ie, have eternal salvation), no matter what.

How incredibly comforting. Trusting in this got me through most of college, because I was more than a conqueror, and God was looking out for me. The reassurance of God's unconditional love gave me a certain amount of peace--but it didn't answer my questions about His Plan. Even if my life happens according to God's will (which is good), I am still a puppet, and I don't want that. Even if I have the freedom to make my own decisions (which seems to be the case), I am at risk of screwing something up, and I don't want that either. Even if I am never going to "lose," none of this explains to me how it is possible. [8]

The thing is, predestination and free will have conflicting agendas. When one side says "you live your life according to God's will" and the other says "you have the freedom to make your own choices," there's basically no way for them to be resolved. In the timeline of our lives, there simply isn't room for both to be possible. We simultaneously want and reject both perspectives, but either way, we can't comprehend a way for the two theories to exist side by side. From where I am standing, I can only see the path of where I have been, and not the unknown of the future, and therefore, neither option seems plausible. Or even very desirable.

Enter the Doctor. [9] Specifically into the life of Sally Sparrow, who has no idea what's going on, and is thoroughly confused about how all the bizarre stuff that keeps happening to her is somehow connected. And while Sally is working out the complicated concept of Time Travel, Piera is flipping out because the Doctor just answered all of her questions in about 15 seconds.

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly... timey-wimey... stuff." [10]

We--people, humans, non Time Lords--can only see the "strict progression of cause to effect." But what if, for example, we could step outside of our timeline and look at everything as a whole: the past, the present, and the future? Rose Tyler looked into the time vortex, and saw all of time and space--she took the words "bad wolf" and put them along her own timeline, leading herself to the very moment in which she looked into the time vortex and saw all of time and space. In that moment, she sees "everything. All that is, all that was, all that ever could be." She even knows that "everything must come to dust." [11]

… this … sounds familiar. Like someone else has said it before, maybe, you know, in Genesis? [12] Or Revelation? [13]

The human thought process can't fully comprehend that freedom of will can exist alongside an intelligent, active design--but that's because we're not GOD. Rose looked into the time vortex, and it nearly killed her. But the Doctor sees everything, all the time. He can step into it, and He can see it from the outside. [14] Our freedom to make decisions can exist alongside God's Plan, because we are on the inside, making decisions for the here and now. Those decisions are based on only what we know, which is basically comprised of what we have experienced in the past and what we can attempt to predict of the near future. And because those decisions are still within our own timeline, and we are not in control of it. But we don't have to be, because God is. And God is outside of time.

Take a minute to actually think about that.

God

is outside

of time.

God can have a Plan because He exists outside of our comprehension of how The Plan should work out. We may be trapped within the "time vortex" of cause-to-effect, but he sees the entire journey, start to finish, from outside of it. He also has the power (because omnipotence, plus being its Creator) to add to it, to allow or prevent obstacles, to shape our paths in the direction He wants us to go. We can't change the past and we can't predict the future, so we just hold on to the right now and hope it will all work out.

And the thing is--it will. Because God has a Plan, remember? A Plan for our welfare and not for evil; a Plan for hope and a future. A Plan that comes out of creating us, knowing us, loving us. At some point (and somewhat reluctantly, I might add), I became the obnoxious friend who always tells you that "everything happens for a reason." And at some later point (probably after watching "Blink"), I realized that I completely believe that to be true. Everything, both the good and the bad, has a place in The Big Picture of Things, and somehow, whether we realize it or not, it's all connected. God has created it, and is actively involved in it. He took the time to scatter "bad wolf" here and there in my life, in order to lead me to where I am right now, and in order to direct me toward my future. And I am looking forward to that future, because I am positive that it will be fanTAStic. [15]

---
[1] ...and how does he manage to be so attractive while he does it??
[2] Proof, by the way, that I am actually capable of doing this. Just not so great at doing it naturally.
[3] Luke 12:7 -- Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.
[4] For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
[5] Genesis 2:15-17 -- The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
[6] Ephesians 2:8-9 -- For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
[7] No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
[8] Does it really matter if I understand it? Okay, no. Not really. But I like having answers, and I don't like going along with a concept if I don't really get it. Hence, this entire post.
[9] And I am here issuing a massive spoiler alert -- although to be honest, if you haven't seen any of Doctor Who I'm not sure how much of this will make sense anyway.
[10] Doctor Who - "Blink" (series 3, episode 10) - btw that's also where the quote at the top is from. It just made for a better intro without the footnote ;)
[11] Doctor Who - "The Parting of the Ways" (series 1, episode 13)
[12] Genesis 3:19c -- ...for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
[13] Revelation 1:8 -- "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
[14] For the record, I am NOT trying to paint the Doctor as a representation of the one true God. There are parallels in the time vortex aspect, but the entities themselves are absolutely not the same. Just so we're clear.
[15] It's a 9th-Doctor-ism, in case you didn't read it in a Christopher Eccleston voice.

I'm writing a book called "How to Make Enemies" ... let me know if you want an autographed copy

I'm on dangerous ground here. You may know that I like to stay away (far, far away) from today's social issues and politics, because there's too much emotion riding on everything and I have noticed that it is generally hard for people to see reason when they're on a soapbox.

But therein, kids, lies the problem. The pursuit of Justice and Equality is never actually a reasonable one. It's always skewed by someone's agenda, someone's pride, or someone's real or imagined (but mostly imagined) suffering. It's far nobler to fight for a cause than to just look out for ourselves, but when we fight for a generalized cause, we tend to lose sight of ... well, reason. Intelligent, semi-objective, philosophical thought. All of it, out the window, because it's the idea that counts (right?), and not the specifics. [1]

So what got me so riled up that I decided to step out of my cave and make some enemies? Two things that will always provoke in me some ~~feelings: Doctor Who and Feminism.

I've been sitting on this rant since I read this article. Today, I read this one. And I'm already mad at my boss, so it's easy to sort of channel that anger into an I-don't-care-I'm-gonna-say-it-anyway-this-is-my-gorram-blog kind of post. You have been warned. It's not too late to turn back.

[Also, I have issued a Spoiler Alert for the rest of the post.]

Ladies and gentlemen (have you ever noticed that this very common phrase begins with "ladies"? Interesting.), I find this whole "the Doctor should be a woman!" rant to be quite disheartening. Maybe if the arguments were, I don't know, solid, I could get behind them. But when the premise of the argument is made with unsupported claims, they effectively make the people arguing them (and thus, the cause as a whole) look idiotic. (please see [1] again because it applies here too)

Kissell and Helmuth are opposed to having "yet another white British dude" [*] playing the Doctor for, as far as I can tell, two reasons:
a) the Doctor has thus far always played by British white guys, and clearly that's the sexist choice to portray men superior to women, and
b) because the show/Moffat portrays women as "sad and broken." [**]

...wait, what? Sad and broken? Have you even watched the show before, Elizabeth Lopatto?! Let's examine her argument for just a minute: "I'm fine with the next Doctor being a dude, as long as we get more interesting women and a more emotionally competent writer." [**]

I see two glaring problems with this sentence alone. The first is "more interesting women," and the second is "a more emotionally competent writer."

Lady, do you realize that the reason this show is so popular is the overwhelming amount of emotional connection viewers have with the characters and the story? "The Girl in the Fireplace" was the reason many of us fell in love with the Doctor in the first place, because of how much he cared about Reinette and how devastated he was that she died before he came back for her, even though he barely knew her. "Silence in the Library" and "Forest of the Dead," once you understand why, have one of the more tragic plot elements I've ever seen, and the kicker is that you don't even realize how tragic until well into season 6 (I'm not telling you if you don't know). "Amy's Choice" presents the question everyone is asking--Rory or the Doctor?--in a way that makes you sit on the edge of your seat and wonder which Amy will choose, because you sure as hell can't decide for yourself. I don't think the problem is that he isn't "emotionally competent." If it's just that you don't like the way he plays with your emotion, then don't watch the show.

And then--more interesting women? Because Clara, who jumped into the Doctor's entire timeline and rescued him without him even realizing it, and Rose, who absorbed the time vortex to defeat the Daleks, and Martha, who traveled the world to save the Doctor, while being hunted by tiny childlike weapon-aliens, aren't interesting enough? And how could I forget "abuse victim River Song, whose lives are stolen from her by the man she loves, for whom she later goes to jail for a crime she didn't commit; although placeholder/perfume model Amy Pond should get special mention for blandness." Yep, that's right, abuse victim River Song, who is so wounded and broken, except for the part where she stares down a Dalek until it cries for mercy, and how she has the Doctor wrapped around her finger and he doesn't even realize it. Because Amy Pond is a bland placeholder--bland?! really?? you couldn't find any other word? What about Donna, who saved the Doctor and the world and created the Doctor-Donna, and can't even remember it? If that's not "interesting" then I can't help you, Elizabeth. And if you don't like your characters to be "sad and broken" then stick to picture books, because I can think of no great work of literature that doesn't feature someone who isn't sad or broken in some way.

Honestly, it's not the cry for a female Doctor that bothers me. In fact, I think that would be quite the road to go down. From a literary perspective, or a philosophical one, or even from a "hey let's just mix things up!" perspective, it would be very cool if the Doctor was a woman. I'm just honestly so offended at the weak and ridiculous arguments being made for it to happen. It's evident that Laura Helmuth [**] isn't overly familiar with the show, based on the fact that she slips up and says "an actor playing Doctor Who" instead of "an actor playing the Doctor."

Of course, she also refers to Tim Minchin as a "dreamboat." [**] Do you see how her credibility might be plummeting?

Ted B. Kissell [*] actually started to form an argument that might have made sense; one of the most compelling statements I've heard on the subject is his comment on "Moffat's handling of his female leads," which was that "River Song, Amy Pond, Clara Oswald--all of them were mysteries for the Doctor to solve, instead of simply people."

You know what, that's a fair point. [2] This one makes me think a little: does the Doctor just view his companions as mysteries to solve? I can see the argument about those three companions. But then, the Doctor also sort of treats everything as a mystery to solve--and what about Craig in "The Lodger"? He's a "dude" [3], plus, the only reason the Doctor moved in with him was the mystery on the second floor. So if we're arguing that the Doctor doesn't treat people as people, then we have to include...everyone. And that's an entirely different topic than the one at hand.

The other big point Kissell argues is the "structurally sexist" [4] element: "i.e., the power imbalance inherent in the relationship between the male Doctor and his usually female companion." Let us keep in mind that Ted Kissell is upset about the fact that "the insidious cultural marinade known as The Patriarchy has penetrated your brain," so no one let on to him that he's a part of it. [5] Seriously though--the superiority argument is confusing to me. The fact that the Doctor has companions doesn't really seem establish a hierarchy. The term "companion" is an accurate description, and I fail to see how it's insulting. [6] The "inherent" distinction is between Time Lords and humans, but that seems appropriate, doesn't it? Besides, the Doctor needs a companion. He goes a little crazy (and a little miserable) without one. And haven't we just gone over the part where various companions save the Doctor, the world, the universe, reality, etc? These are the kinds of arguments that strike me as really trying to create a problem. Companions are only "inferior" if you choose to perceive them as such, but I don't think that perception is necessarily supported by the actual plotlines, given the textual (episodial?) evidence that the companions are friends, traveling partners, and often heroes.

Then again, why would Moffat make it clear that there could be a woman Doctor if he wasn't going to create one? [7] And what if the Doctor WAS played by a woman? I mean, "having a woman as the smartest, bravest person in the universe, being able to fix any problem, save the world with her wits, a magical vehicle, and boundless courage--who wouldn't want to watch that show?" [*] Sure, I would love to watch that show. It would be awesome. [8] But both Kissell and Helmuth make the observation that Moffat would obviously screw up the female Doctor, since "during the regeneration of Mels into River Song, after all, we were treated to such Moffaty gems as her 'focusing on a dress size,' weighing herself, and going shopping." [*] Because women don't do that? Ever? Wouldn't you, if you weren't a member of the insidious Patriarchy [9] and you transformed into a different body? I think (surprisingly!) Helmuth actually gets closer with her observation that "if Moffat writes us a female Twelve, I imagine she'll be just as sad and broken as the other women he's written." [**] That I actually agree with. And then inevitably, someone would complain that the Doctor was under too much pressure, and she never got the thanks she deserved. Someone else would argue that she was portrayed as too giving, too self-sacrificing, and her goodwill was being abused. Her maternal instinct would be subject to question--why does the fact that she's female mean that she has to take care of everyone? Is that like her role, just because she's a woman? Yet another indignant viewer would be upset that the Doctor's hard decisions made her look like the badguy, and how come she can't be better at saving everyone? Unless the argument is that a female Doctor would find a way to save the world without any casualties. In which case, I don't want to watch that show, because part of the beauty of it is the raw, realistic (well, sorta) element of "you can't win all the battles all the time." The Doctor has to make the hard decisions, and I don't think that should ever change.

I just ... I can't figure out what you want, Feminist Cause. I think it's power for all women, and to ensure that women are not portrayed in pop culture as inferior to men, but it doesn't seem like you're actually evaluating the story, or the characters' relationships, or the philosophy of the Doctor himself. The arguments you are making are sort of trickling through to sound like "I want a woman Doctor because there aren't enough women who do badass things in this show" (false) "and how come it's always weird rando British guys that no one has actually heard of until they were Doctors?" [10] In fact, you're so busy being upset about the fact that the title character is a man, that you're completely missing all the fantastic stuff women in this show are doing. And yeah, the characters are broken. Yeah, people get hurt, and the Doctor is a little bit of an island. But the Doctor doesn't change, not at his core, and we're used to him. It's the women of the show who keep it running, keep it interesting. It sounds like you want someone incapable of being wounded, someone with no sense of fashion, someone who is fearless and flawless and independent and perfect. But I think you would hate her twice as much as you hate that Twelve is a male Doctor.

But then again, I'm on my soapbox. Maybe I'm just not seeing reason.

---
[*] from "The Depressing, Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who's New Time Lord" (The Atlantic)
[**] from "The Next Doctor Should Be a Woman. You Should Care Even if You Don't Watch Doctor Who" (Slate.com)

[1] This applies to everything, including, mind you, a lot of Christian theology, which will sacrifice actual doctrine in order to support a cause like "evangelism" or "youth ministry." This is an entirely different rant but it was worth noting.
[2] Never mind that basically every woman I know wants to be a mystery ...
[3] Why do both of these authors refer to men as "dudes"? Are they trying to be insensitive to men in order to dole out some justice? Or something?
[4] He took that quote from some other blog, but if you read the article you can find it for yourself. This ain't no research paper, deal with it.
[5] Or that his "favorite doctor, Tennant," is also "another white guy." Just sayin.
[6] Merriam-Webster's first definition is "one that accompanies another: comrade, associate; also: one that keeps company with another."
[7] Maybe because it's an interesting fact for the Doctor Who trivia bank, like the fact that he has children. Or maybe because Moffat is going to change the Doctor into a woman or something, and wouldn't that cause an uproar (and make a lot of people feel really stupid).
[8] Arguably, I watch it every time I sit down to watch Doctor Who. But I think I must be watching a different show than everyone else ...
[9] That's HIS capitalization, by the way, and he didn't capitalize any of the terms he uses to refer to women. Someone explain this to me.
[10] Really, I just wanted to use the word "rando" because it makes me giggle.