I first read Victor Hugo's novel as a sophomore in college. That novel, like Cervantes' Don Quixote (which I read at the same time), had a remarkable effect on me. Both are still -- to this day -- a profoundly spiritual, and distinctively Christian, experience.
Then came the movie at Christmas, 2012. I saw the movie with Kendra and was moved to tears at the final scene.
Then Kendra and I were able to see the musical live at TPAC in 2016. We saw it again at the Tennessee Theatre last night.
All of this to say: We're both hardcore fans. She can sing every line of every part (male and female); I'm able to sing-along with the voices whose notes I can actually hit on key (which is to say, not very much). But the soundtrack is an important part of our life together.
Unfortunately, though, in watching it last night, Kendra and I were forced to take a seat on different rows. We bought our tickets a little too late. So the experience wasn't as fun for me -- I like watching her watching the performance as much as I like watching the performance. So last night gave me a different perspective than the one I've had at movie-going and at our first viewing of the performance.
Last night, I clearly noticed something that I'd only thought in passing about the characters. Specifically, Jean Valjean, Javert and Enjolras (along with Marius and the other student-revolutionaries at the barricade).
I think Javert and Enjolras should be considered as two poles along a continuum in how one aligns political power with God. On the one end is Javert -- who represents a conservative (Constantinian?) vision where God is completely aligned with the state, particularly the law and order aspects of the state (although Javert also espouses the capitalistic theology where "honest work" is the way we "please the Lord"). Thus, to fail in the state's system -- politically or economically -- is to fall afoul of God. This view is at the heart of Javert's theological condemnation of Valjean. Valjean isn't just a criminal in the eyes of Javert, he's a sinner "fallen from God, fallen from grace". Thus Javert prays to God to help him find Valjean to restore order and harmony to the moral universe.
At the opposite end of the continuum from Javert we have the idealistic and revolutionary theology of Enjolras. The student-revolutionaries are scandalized by the plight of the poor and plan to lead a violent popular uprising (Victor Hugo based these events on the 1832 June Rebellion in Paris). His vision is one of violent revolution in order to restore the balance of the moral universe. (True story: Last night, the lady seated near me extolled the virtues of Enjolras because he represents, to her, the revolution necessary to overthrow the current American administration. That fact alone should help my readers understand where this reflection comes from.)
Though Enjolras and Javert find themselves in conflict, I place them on the same continuum as each seeks to take or use political power as means to accomplish the ends of God. They are the poles of Constantinianism on the one hand and Revolution on the other. But both agree that we need to "take charge" of the world, violently so, for the Kingdom to come.
Plucking his way through the world, and our story, is Jean Valjean, the story's hero.
I think Jean Valjean offers a very different vision of the world than Javert and Enjolras.
Regarding Javert, we see how Valjean's grace eventually explodes Javert's worldview. This conflict -- the conflict between grace and law -- drives much of the dynamic between Javert and Valjean. We come to see that God is aligned with grace and love as displayed by Valjean rather than with the justice embodied by Javert. The love, grace and mercy of God cannot be reduced to the way political systems define and enforce law and order or the way economic systems define winners and losers. Valjean is poor and a criminal. That's how Valjean is seen by "the system", by Javert. But we see that the system is wrong and satanic. We see that Valjean is a saint.
The contrast with Valjean and Enjolras isn't one of direct confrontation as between Valjean and Javert. But after last night, I think there's a contrast to be made in how Valjean and Enjolras relate to the poor. Les Misérables can be variously translated as The Miserable, The Wretched, The Miserable Ones, The Poor Ones, The Wretched Poor, or The Victims. These are the people the story revolves around, and we see Valjean and Enjolras approaching les misérables in different ways.
Again, Enjolras' remedy is one of violent revolution. And yet, these are idealistic, well-to-do "schoolboys" contemplating injustice philosophically and, one could argue, somewhat abstractly and distantly. This isn't to be judgmental, just to draw out a contrast with Valjean's interaction with les misérables.
In contrast with Enjolras, Valjean's relationship with les misérables is more personal. For Valjean there are no abstract discussions about corrupt political systems, there is only Fantine.
Fantine is the embodiment of les misérables, her story is the incarnation of tragedy, exploitation and victimhood. (Incidentally, in the movie Anne Hathaway's performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is, for me, utterly soul-crushing, the best performance of that piece I've ever seen or heard, and remains the scene that made the movie for me.)
What drives Valjean for most of the story is his personal, concrete and lifelong commitment to Fantine, in particular his commitment to care for Cosette, Fantine's daughter. And after last night I think that this is a contrast with the revolutionaries at the barricade. For Valjean les misérables are not "the people" or "the poor" in the abstract but a particular person with a name. For Valjean les misérables is Fantine.
Incidentally, I think this is an important contrast for churches to ponder. For example, among the mainline folks with whom I worship, there's a lot of abstract talk about "the poor" and "the homeless". What's more, a lot of the members of the church with whom I worship are pretty passionate about "the poor" and "the homeless". But the vast majority of these same people don't actually know any poor or homeless people or count them among their friends. In short, they have no Fantine, no concrete personal relationship. All they have is the abstract radical rhetoric of a Liberal theology.
And I'm fairly certain my left-leaning Progressive Christian friends will think I'm a bit too hard on Enjolras.
I noticed last night just how much the story hinges on Valjean coming to care for Fantine because he is confronted with his own complicity in her tragic story. Valjean is both mayor and factory owner -- politician and capitalist -- and he presides over the systems that victimize Fantine. Fantine's life becomes fatally tragic because Valjean, the politician and capitalist, "turned away". When Valjean is finally confronted with his sin, he commits himself to the care of Fantine and Cosette. This is, I think, the second conversion of Valjean in the story, a conversion that stands as an indictment of the economic and political systems that create victims like Fantine.
The first conversion, as we all know, is when Valjean is given the candlesticks by the priest as an act of forgiveness, mercy and grace. A gift that buys Valjean's soul for God. And what we witness in Les Misérables are the cascading ripple effects of that singular act of kindness. That act of grace changes the world. That act of mercy saves Valjean who goes on to save Fantine, Cosette, and Marius. And even Javert.
Two candlesticks -- one act of mercy -- saves them all.
Which is a vision in the Epilogue that moves so many to tears (starts about 2:15). Listen carefully to the words of that vision. Go ahead, I'll wait.
That is the vision of the Kingdom of God that is so moving -- one that neither Javert and Enjolras alone can give.
Let those with hears to hear listen to what Hugo is telling the Church.
Then came the movie at Christmas, 2012. I saw the movie with Kendra and was moved to tears at the final scene.
Then Kendra and I were able to see the musical live at TPAC in 2016. We saw it again at the Tennessee Theatre last night.
All of this to say: We're both hardcore fans. She can sing every line of every part (male and female); I'm able to sing-along with the voices whose notes I can actually hit on key (which is to say, not very much). But the soundtrack is an important part of our life together.
Unfortunately, though, in watching it last night, Kendra and I were forced to take a seat on different rows. We bought our tickets a little too late. So the experience wasn't as fun for me -- I like watching her watching the performance as much as I like watching the performance. So last night gave me a different perspective than the one I've had at movie-going and at our first viewing of the performance.
Last night, I clearly noticed something that I'd only thought in passing about the characters. Specifically, Jean Valjean, Javert and Enjolras (along with Marius and the other student-revolutionaries at the barricade).
I think Javert and Enjolras should be considered as two poles along a continuum in how one aligns political power with God. On the one end is Javert -- who represents a conservative (Constantinian?) vision where God is completely aligned with the state, particularly the law and order aspects of the state (although Javert also espouses the capitalistic theology where "honest work" is the way we "please the Lord"). Thus, to fail in the state's system -- politically or economically -- is to fall afoul of God. This view is at the heart of Javert's theological condemnation of Valjean. Valjean isn't just a criminal in the eyes of Javert, he's a sinner "fallen from God, fallen from grace". Thus Javert prays to God to help him find Valjean to restore order and harmony to the moral universe.
At the opposite end of the continuum from Javert we have the idealistic and revolutionary theology of Enjolras. The student-revolutionaries are scandalized by the plight of the poor and plan to lead a violent popular uprising (Victor Hugo based these events on the 1832 June Rebellion in Paris). His vision is one of violent revolution in order to restore the balance of the moral universe. (True story: Last night, the lady seated near me extolled the virtues of Enjolras because he represents, to her, the revolution necessary to overthrow the current American administration. That fact alone should help my readers understand where this reflection comes from.)
Though Enjolras and Javert find themselves in conflict, I place them on the same continuum as each seeks to take or use political power as means to accomplish the ends of God. They are the poles of Constantinianism on the one hand and Revolution on the other. But both agree that we need to "take charge" of the world, violently so, for the Kingdom to come.
Plucking his way through the world, and our story, is Jean Valjean, the story's hero.
I think Jean Valjean offers a very different vision of the world than Javert and Enjolras.
Regarding Javert, we see how Valjean's grace eventually explodes Javert's worldview. This conflict -- the conflict between grace and law -- drives much of the dynamic between Javert and Valjean. We come to see that God is aligned with grace and love as displayed by Valjean rather than with the justice embodied by Javert. The love, grace and mercy of God cannot be reduced to the way political systems define and enforce law and order or the way economic systems define winners and losers. Valjean is poor and a criminal. That's how Valjean is seen by "the system", by Javert. But we see that the system is wrong and satanic. We see that Valjean is a saint.
The contrast with Valjean and Enjolras isn't one of direct confrontation as between Valjean and Javert. But after last night, I think there's a contrast to be made in how Valjean and Enjolras relate to the poor. Les Misérables can be variously translated as The Miserable, The Wretched, The Miserable Ones, The Poor Ones, The Wretched Poor, or The Victims. These are the people the story revolves around, and we see Valjean and Enjolras approaching les misérables in different ways.
Again, Enjolras' remedy is one of violent revolution. And yet, these are idealistic, well-to-do "schoolboys" contemplating injustice philosophically and, one could argue, somewhat abstractly and distantly. This isn't to be judgmental, just to draw out a contrast with Valjean's interaction with les misérables.
In contrast with Enjolras, Valjean's relationship with les misérables is more personal. For Valjean there are no abstract discussions about corrupt political systems, there is only Fantine.
Fantine is the embodiment of les misérables, her story is the incarnation of tragedy, exploitation and victimhood. (Incidentally, in the movie Anne Hathaway's performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is, for me, utterly soul-crushing, the best performance of that piece I've ever seen or heard, and remains the scene that made the movie for me.)
What drives Valjean for most of the story is his personal, concrete and lifelong commitment to Fantine, in particular his commitment to care for Cosette, Fantine's daughter. And after last night I think that this is a contrast with the revolutionaries at the barricade. For Valjean les misérables are not "the people" or "the poor" in the abstract but a particular person with a name. For Valjean les misérables is Fantine.
Incidentally, I think this is an important contrast for churches to ponder. For example, among the mainline folks with whom I worship, there's a lot of abstract talk about "the poor" and "the homeless". What's more, a lot of the members of the church with whom I worship are pretty passionate about "the poor" and "the homeless". But the vast majority of these same people don't actually know any poor or homeless people or count them among their friends. In short, they have no Fantine, no concrete personal relationship. All they have is the abstract radical rhetoric of a Liberal theology.
And I'm fairly certain my left-leaning Progressive Christian friends will think I'm a bit too hard on Enjolras.
I noticed last night just how much the story hinges on Valjean coming to care for Fantine because he is confronted with his own complicity in her tragic story. Valjean is both mayor and factory owner -- politician and capitalist -- and he presides over the systems that victimize Fantine. Fantine's life becomes fatally tragic because Valjean, the politician and capitalist, "turned away". When Valjean is finally confronted with his sin, he commits himself to the care of Fantine and Cosette. This is, I think, the second conversion of Valjean in the story, a conversion that stands as an indictment of the economic and political systems that create victims like Fantine.
The first conversion, as we all know, is when Valjean is given the candlesticks by the priest as an act of forgiveness, mercy and grace. A gift that buys Valjean's soul for God. And what we witness in Les Misérables are the cascading ripple effects of that singular act of kindness. That act of grace changes the world. That act of mercy saves Valjean who goes on to save Fantine, Cosette, and Marius. And even Javert.
Two candlesticks -- one act of mercy -- saves them all.
Which is a vision in the Epilogue that moves so many to tears (starts about 2:15). Listen carefully to the words of that vision. Go ahead, I'll wait.
That is the vision of the Kingdom of God that is so moving -- one that neither Javert and Enjolras alone can give.
Let those with hears to hear listen to what Hugo is telling the Church.