Heroic Expectations

    Last night I did something one of the things that makes me question my own sanity: I stayed up till one in the morning. I did it for very good reasons: I wanted to spend time with my sister, the best way to do that is to have fun with her, and that only happens after she gets off work (nine thirty). I bought three dollars worth of candy (two Butterfingers, a Reeses, a KitKat, a Milkyway with carmel, and a package of M&Ms) and she bought a frosty, and we shared and watched the three-hour English TV-show-turned-movie Alice.  It was great fun, and I don't regret it, but as I was walking upstairs a thought struck me, as thoughts are apt to do at one in the morning if one is still up and full of sugar.

   The movie bothered me. Why? Well, I have no idea. It was fun, there was very little junk in it, and while the characters weren't-quite-believable, they were fun to watch. More, the idea of an economy being run completely by providing the people with pleasure to keep them happy while the government did as it likes hit rather close to home in a good way. But the characters, the two main characters...they were fun, yes, but...

   But heroes? Yes, the Hatter changes into one, arguably. But Alice--twas only when she saw two children being vanished that she acted; before then she had compassion but didn't act on it. Thinking back, most modern movies I've seen has only reluctant heroes, those who become heroes only after traumatic incidents that give them motivation that gradually changes to heroism, or those who only become heroes after dragging their feet for a very long two hours. And then, once they're heroes--I wonder if part of the reason so many sequels are so pathetic is because we, America, doesn't know what to do with real heroes once they're heroic--do we even know how they act or what they struggle with?

   And I looked at Alice last night and realized that for America, what makes a hero is someone who decides to act and risk themselves even though they don't have to. But my idea of a hero is something more, I think, for the expectation that someone would risk themselves for others--even others they don't know--is inherent in the idea of Christianity. We're called to risk scorn, persecution, and sometimes death to bring the gospel to others, others we don't know yet. We're supposed to love neighbors as ourselves (and we all know Jesus' definition of neighbors). Risking oneself for others isn't supposed to be grandly, stand-out heroic, it's supposed to be commonplace (though that doesn't make it less admirable). A hero, a real hero, does all he can with all he has out of selfless love and faces every trouble with perseverance--he doesn't give up. He does more for others than for himself. Yet do we (Americans again) expect that of our heroes? Do we expect them to live a life--not just an adventure--giving up everything for others? 

   I'm not sure that's a clear distinction, and I'm not sure it matters. But it did make me wonder--if Christ's expectations (love your neighbor as yourself) expand my view of what is heroic, what are heroes in heaven? If so much of the heroic qualities I see now are going to common (though beautiful and admirable), what is going to be uncommon? What in heaven will really stand out as heroic?