Watching Hotel Del Luna during the Circuit Breaker period is bad. It
gives me plenty of time to brood and over-think the themes and the various
values that were mentioned in the show.
One of the most significant elements of the show has to do with the Bridge
to the Afterlife. In the show, souls begin the painful and long journey across
the bridge in order to cross into the afterlife and be reborn. Along the way,
they go through the process of forgetting everything about their past life. By
the time they reach the end of the bridge, their soul is a clean slate, ready
to begin anew.
Naturally, the most painful part of this process is reserved for the
ones left behind, knowing someone they love will leave them, and never remember
anything about them. We all prefer the concept of our loved ones looking down
on us from heaven don’t we? One of the very poignant scenes (for me) featured a
man who desperately hoped his dead girlfriend was still somewhere on earth and
was accessible via a proxy. It was too painful to know that the parting was
final and complete. And yet, it seems that both the Bible and the show share a
similar notion that all relationships on earth are rendered meaningless in the
eyes of eternity.
In the Bible, we are told that there are no ties in heaven. No brother
or sister, father or mother. No spouse, no children. We are all individual
entities whose only communal relationship is that of being the Body of Christ.
And that has always sounded perfectly normal back when I was deeply steeped in
church teachings and the church community. Yet after watching this show and
musing about the questions it stirred inside of me, I am left to wonder why is
such a big deal therefore made of the institute of marriage. Unlike our own
personal salvation which is eternal, we are told that the relationships
we have on earth is a transient one. Once we die, it is rendered meaningless.
Why does that pose a quandary to me? Because the Bible also clearly instructs
us not to invest in things that do no last. I believe in spiritual disciplines
because my soul is eternal. I believe in serving in church because the whole plan
is to eventually be the body of Christ. But if marriage so temporal, then why should
I make such a big deal out of it?
Marriage is hard work. Ask any married couple. In fact, ask the
alarming high population of divorcees. If I indeed was lucky enough to find my
soul mate and invested a lifetime of effort in maintaining my relationship,
building up memories of our shared endeavours together and reaping the sweet benefits of a lifetime nurturing
the love between me and my wife, it is indeed cruel beyond all measure to know
that the hard work would indeed last merely this lifetime, after which it is
rendered meaningless.
In the book of Genesis, God commands us to go forth and multiply. But
this would not be possible without the institute of marriage, otherwise we
would suffer the faux pas of committing sexual sin. So in fact, it would appear
to me that marriage was instituted by God so that we can legitimately procreate
in a way that does not offend God. Aside from that, I don’t see anything a
marriage offers which a good fellowship in church cannot offer. From a Biblical
perspective, of course.
I know 1 Corinthians 13 says that now we see dimly but then we shall
see clearly. And that is the best defence I can have for why the Bible espouses
marriage as a worthy enterprise despite its transience. Marriage is supposed to
be a foreshadow for the true marriage which is the union between Christ and the
Church. When that day comes, everything we had in a marriage pales and fades
away in comparison to that magnificent union we have in Christ. And so the
seeming loss of something as profound as all the significant relationships we
built up in life becomes as nothing.
That sounds really grand, but for someone like me who is in the process
of being in a marriage, it is downright offensive to be told that marriage
serves as a higher form of fellowship, whose unique selling point is pro-creation
as well as a legit reason to have sex. I place a very high premium on my
marriage because I know I share a life with my wife in a way which no other
friendship or any other earthly endeavour (ministry, career, or any other
achievement) can ever trump. Next to God, there is nothing more important to me
than my wife, and nothing I won’t give up for her. To be told that such a bond
is actually extremely transient is not only discouraging, it is outright
offensive.
Of course, when I talk about marriage, I extend this to eventually mean
the whole family unit. How often do we get all teary eyed at the thought of one
day seeing our loved ones again in heaven? And how often do we hear that in
church eulogies, with the speaker exhorting that for the Christian with hopes
of eternal life, parting is temporal for we shall one day all meet again? The
draconic theologian might feel a spiritual compulsion to correct the speaker
that such a reunion has been badly misrepresented. For when we meet again, we
shall no longer recognize each other at all. We shall only be like Communist
sheep, recognising that we all share a common identity of having returned to
the Motherland.
If you find that image offensive, trust me. I feel the same way.
As I watched the theme repeated again and again in the show about how
passing over to the afterlife means the total wiping of all memories, the most
realistic part of the show would be the pain embodied by every one of those
left behind. Its painful to know that all the deep and meaningful relationships
and memories built up over the precious moments together will be rendered empty
all in one fell swoop. If I was lucky enough to meet the love of my life, I
want nothing more than to be with that person forever. Even if I don’t believe
in reincarnation, I want to know that the person I loved on earth would still
be someone special to me in heaven.
I also remember a time in church when “multiplying cell groups” was a
very hot idea. Everyone had grand notions about how it allowed the church to
grow rapidly, fulfilling the grand design of God. I was one of those who protested,
recognizing how it repeatedly dilutes the inter-relational dynamics in the cell
group. I felt that the church is nothing without the bonds of fellowship. If
the relationship within the cell groups are shallow, the church is in a very
sad state regardless of the size. Back then, I was reprimanded for being too
emotional, and not recognizing that the value of the mission to grow the church.
But more importantly, I remember being glad I was not alone. People resisted
the notion because they feared saying goodbye to relationships that had already
been invested in.
Everyone hates to break ties and say goodbye.
So is this a cultural malaise? The over-emoting of ourselves in
spiritual matters that focuses more on the self rather than the race which God
has set out for us? If I were to focus on the running the race, would it matter
less how futile building those deep relationships really are? Maybe we really
should expect less from each other and just maintain a surface relationship.
One which is sufficient to constitute serving one another, but which does not
over-extend ourselves on an endeavour with such a transient reward. Maybe “deep
relationships” really was never intended
by God. We are only called to a deep relationship with Him after all.
So maybe I really did get it wrong all this while, and therefore all
that happened to me was richly deserved. I’m told that self-aggrandizement is especially
detested by God, as it takes away all the glory which is actually due to Him.
