In fact, I was inspired....or perhaps some might think, possessed, to work the ideas a bit more. Be warned.
I’m launching out without the benefit of the connections to the posts that prompted these thoughts, so forgive me. It concerned the problem that it seemed out of character for Spike to think he deserved to suffer.
One difference in the characters of Angel and Spike lies in their view of redemption. Whether ME intends it or not, their views nicely parallel the ideas in Christian history over the past few centuries. One great debate in the last 500 years concerned how one reached Heaven. Theologians recognized that there were two major arguments : the “good works” theory and the “justification” theory. Obviously, the good works theory puts a huge emphasis on the idea that one “earns” the right to enter Heaven. The theory of justification says that one is saved by faith alone; good works are irrelevant. In other words, if one has the right attitude (in the Christian faith, belief in Christ) then one will reach Heaven. This synopsis is a bit heavy on the Christian theological terminology in wording, but accurate.
www.presenttruthmag.com/aof-noframes/art8.htm It’s complicated a bit* by the idea that true justification inevitably results in a changed character, but let that slide for now. The example I use to explain this: There is nothing Hitler could do in all of eternity to wipe out his evil actions. No matter how much good he does, he’s damned. But, according to a Christian who believes in “justification” if Hitler, with his dying thoughts, repented of his evil and professed his faith, he would be redeemed and enter Heaven. Some Christian theologians even posit that everyone, at the moment of death or at some point thereafter, will be given a chance to “choose” the path of Heaven. Some say it also calls for a specific commitment to Jesus, others suggest in may be more simply a choice for “good.” In this case, one’s life is about learning to recognize the choice between good and evil. This philosophy neatly bypasses the various competing Christian/non-Christian religions. One of the greatest Christian apologists, C.S. Lewis, suggested this might be true.
If you think it’s too “easy” to “get away with a life of evil” by just choosing at the last moment and enter Heaven, then you have the old fashioned** view that past crimes deserve punishment. However, many theologians think that the choice for good is actually hard to make when one has a background of evil. Witness Spike’s comments about “it was a party” and Angel’s “evil was art.” So in that view a life of evil does not prepare one to make a choice to enter Heaven, though it could theoretically happen. Even though the Jossverse isn’t Christian, the same ideas resonate, IMO. Angel nicely reflects the old fashioned “good works” theory. One gets into heaven if one does enough good in life, or if the good outweighs the bad. The idea is that your actions are what matters. Spike nicely represents the “justification” angle. You are redeemed by your “state of being.” Spike is “in the moment”, he has “turned a corner” and is now justified, fighting for good, a “hero.”
Angel is busy trying to make up for all the evil he’s done, while Spike knows that there’s nothing her can ever do to change what was. Instead, he sees his defining moment as the choice he made to recover his soul. That decision made the difference in who and what he is.
IMO, the issue is both more complex and more simple. Angel is wrong in thinking that any amount of good works can “balance” his past evil. Time and again we’ve seen stories in the Jossverse that emphasize that point of view. Yet, somehow it seems right to think that Angel can be redeemed. But if it isn’t through good works, then how? IMO, it’s by
choosing, every day, to fight the good fight. It’s not the good works, it’s the soul recognizing the rightness of good action. In
Hellbound, when Spike and Angel talk about the fact that they are “gonna fry” they don’t realize it but they are already on the path of justification. Spike wonders why they are bothering to do the right thing, trying to make a difference, if Hell is waiting. Angel responds, “What else are we gonna do?” Well, they both take it for granted that doing good is it’s own reason for being.
Thus the danger of being at Wolfram and Hart is that it may cloud Angel’s ability to see the choices of right action. It’s important to see that right choice is not the same as good intentions. Angel may have good intentions to fight evil, yet fall into the classic trap of paving his way to Hell with good intentions because he can’t see that good can’t be achieved using W&H. Someone commented that his approach to dealing with Dana was very close to how the COW dealt with Faith. He knew once that the COW made the wrong choice, yet at W&H he and the FG are perilously close to thinking the end justifies the means, and that thinking will lead to hell.
It reminds me of the old Vietnam quote, “In order to save the village we had to destroy it.” Maybe Gunn will next be telling Fred that, "In order to save those people we had to destroy them."
*Well, maybe not a bit...
**old fashioned here is not a value judgment – it could be correct....
okay, this post is even longer and more esoteric than the last... be nice....