First, let me say a bit about the book. The Hunger Games is about Katniss Everdeen and is written through her eyes (in first person). She lives in Panem, which is a futuristic North America where the Capitol is now in the Rocky Mountains and oppresses the 12 outlying districts by forcing them to make goods and raw materials for those who live in the Capitol. About three quarters of a century ago, the districts rebelled against the Capitol which led to war, and in the end the Capitol was able to quash the rebellion. Since then, the Capitol has held the hunger games, where a boy and girl from the ages of 12-18 from each district are drawn from a lottery to compete. The hunger games is essentially a death match, with only one victor. The victor gets heralded as a hero, and earns a life of luxury for himself and his family. This is the Capitol's way of reminding the districts who is in control and is a form of punishment for the rebellion, a paying for the sins of their grandparents so to speak, to ensure that another uprising does not occur.
To the discerning Christian, there should be red flags going up by now. If you were selected for the hunger games, would you compete? Would you kill others just to help out yourself and your family? Is it right? Doug Wilson's answer is an immediate "no." For him, it's obvious:
Suppose the Capitol bad guys had decided to set up a different required sin in their games. Suppose it were the Rape Games instead. Suppose that the person who made it through the games without being raped was the feted winner. Anybody here think that this series would be the bestselling phenomenon that this one is?
To answer Wilson's question, certainly not. But that's a different scenario that I will address momentarily. For now I want to post another bit of what Wilson had to say about The Hunger Games:
As the book progresses, the ethical problems are effectively disguised. The first way is by having a number of the wealthier districts send tributes who are semi-pro. In other words, they are not reluctant participants, but are eager for the glory that attends winning the games. When that kind of guy comes after you, everything is self-defense. Then there is the fact that there are a bunch of them out there killing each other, and Katniss doesn’t have to do it. And the third device, and the one that keeps you turning the pages, that the author does not reveal whether or not Katniss will be willing to kill when it gets down the bitter end, and her opponents are innocents like she is. In other words, you have a likeable protagonist who is fully expecting to do something that is perfectly appalling by the end of the book.
What I want to point out is that Katniss' opponents are not "innocent" if they choose to kill her. I was thinking if I were chosen for the hunger games, I would not compete. Then Jesse Stiemann reminded me of the fact that self-defense is not a sin. Now, perhaps Wilson thinks self-defense is a sin, I am not sure, but I do not. So after careful consideration, I think if I were chosen for the Hunger Games, I would not kill anyone who did not attack me first. Indeed, I would plea with the other contestants to not fight, but if they did not relent, I would defend myself. Though, for me I wonder if I would ever let it get that far. I think if I was chosen I would resist until they killed me. I would never get to the hunger games because I would kill all who forced me to go to them, or more likely they would have to kill me first. Then again, maybe I would not.
It is the sinfulness of man, ultimately, that would allow the hunger games to happen. If all those drawn from the districts simply refused to participate, the Capitol would have to kill them themselves, and that wouldn't be any fun. Not to mention you wouldn't have a very compelling book, would you? So I certainly take Wilson's points to heart, but at the same time, if I were chosen for the hunger games, did not resist to the point of death before they could take me there, and was thrust into the enormous domed outdoor arena that they were placed in to compete, and I had no intention of killing unless it was for self defense, I do not believe that I would have committed any sin.
Understand, I would not be competing in the hunger games. I would be attempting to save my life. And that's where I think Wilson is wrong. Those coming after me to kill me are not innocent. They are choosing to compete in the hunger games. I am not choosing to do so, however, I am also not choosing to forgo my permission to defend my own life. If someone came to kill me in such a situation, they would be attempting murder. I am allowed to save my life from being murdered, am I not? And is my self defense murder? No. Then where am I sinning, Mr. Wilson? I am not Jesus, my mission was not to die to save sinners. My death would not effect the salvation of anyone. I could choose to die, this is true. I will not argue that we are commanded to defend our own lives in every situation.
But what about Katniss' family in the story? I won't spoil anything, except to say essentially that if she dies, her family dies. If I were Katniss and chose to sit out the hunger games, but the others have chosen to try to murder me, I would fight for my family if not myself, and doing so as but a non-participant that happens to be, against my own will, thrust into this arena. If I had no family, I probably would not fight, I would probably let them take me out, though even in that scenario I do not see how it could be considered sin to defend yourself.
Now to address Wilson's rape games scenario. If I were thrust into that situation, I would not rape anyone. Period. Raping someone would not be the way in which one defends themselves. Instead, I would kill them. God commands killing sometimes, but he never commands raping. Killing, in some situations, is not sin. Sometimes it is, and it is called murder. This is why God does, in some situations, command killing, or allow for killing (such as self defense). If they tried to rape me, I would kill them in self defense. Is it a sin for a woman who, walking down a dark alley, attempts to defend herself from a rapist? Surely not. Surely Wilson would not argue that to be like Christ would mean to not offer resistance and to receive the raping.
Now what if this woman is thrown into an arena and is told that there are 23 men who are going to try and rape her because the government has said if they rape her they will get a million dollars? Would the woman not have every right to try to defend herself from being raped? And wouldn't the way to defend yourself be to kill those who are trying to rape you, assuming they did not stop trying to rape you before it came to that? It is completely irrelevant whether or not, in the event this woman succeeds in killing all 23 rapists before they rape her, that she would receive a million dollars herself. Maybe it would be wrong for her to take the money, maybe not. Maybe it would be okay for her to say she did not compete for the money, but if they want to give it to her anyways, that is fine. That's not really worth disputing right now. What I want to point out is that, from best I can tell, Katniss never is looking for the honor of being the champion. Getting food for her family? Perhaps. But to the extent that it would actually drive her to kill not only in self defense but to actually initiate a killing of one who did not try to first kill her (which would be murder)? I don't think so. Honestly I cannot remember from reading the book to be certain, but I did not get the impression that she would kill unless first threatened. And so what if she did? That would not make the book bad or wrong to read.
To reiterate, I am not saying it is acceptable to compete in the hunger games. It is not okay to kill just to get goodies for you and your family, even if your situation is horrible in the first place. I am saying it is okay to fight for your life and for the well being of your family. I have only read the first book of the trilogy, but I can say (slight spoiler) that Katniss kills only in self defense. And it is apparent from the outset that nobody has chosen to sit out the hunger games. All are looking to win, even at the bitter end.
Also, I am not arguing that Collins, the author of The Hunger Games, has her morality right on this one. I am simply disputing Wilson's arguments.
One more segment of Wilson's review I'd like to discuss. Here he may make his strongest argument:
As Thomas Watson put it, better to be wronged than to do wrong. It is not a sin to be murdered. It is not a sin to have your loved ones murdered. It is not a sin to defend your loved ones through every lawful means. But that is the key, that phrase. Every lawful means only makes sense when there is a law, and that only makes sense when there is a Lawgiver. Without that, everything is just dogs scrapping over a piece of meat. And once that is the framework, there is no real way to evaluate anything. The history of the Church is filled with families being martyred together. Survival is not the highest good.Yes, the Church is filled with martyrs, but they were, and are, being martyred for their faith. I would gladly lay down my life if it was due to my faith in Christ (Lord willing). I would not gladly give up my life just because of some silly competition called the hunger games. Nor do I see any command in Scripture that says I cannot defend myself, except when it comes to our faith in Christ. Even then, Christ fled, and the disciples fled. I don't want to get too much into the question of whether it is wrong to try to defend oneself if say, an atheist came to kill you because you were a Christian. Say the girl from Columbine that got her brains blown out for admitting her faith in Christ was instead given a gun and said "If you are really a Christian, lay your gun down and let me kill you." Would she have to do that? I don't think so, to me that sounds a lot like the devil saying to Jesus "if you are really the Son of God, and since you are really hungry, command these stones to be turned to bread." Likewise, couldn't the girl have said, "I am a Christian, my word is proof enough of that. But I do not have to put my gun down so you can kill me to prove it, to cater to you." Not putting a gun down is not recanting your faith in Christ. Denying your faith in Christ is recantation.
So, I am arguing that Katniss in the story could rightfully kill in self defense. But by killing in self defense, she is not competing in the hunger games. Even if she turned out to be the victor and they crowned her as the champ, she could still say she never killed for that reason, and it would be true, despite her being crowned victor.
This is good stuff to talk about with fellow Christians, and for those who have younger children and teens. I may still do a full review of The Hunger Games, but for now let me say this. The writing is done in a simple style, a very readable style, but the subject matter is heavy and thought provoking. Not so much to Wilson, he seems to see this all as flimsy, a matter of situational ethics smoke and mirrors, and for the Christian the only valid response would be taking a sword to the neck or arrow to the heart while on your knees, without any resistance.
But again, this isn't martyrdom. If he wants to be consistent, he should say a woman cannot defend herself from a rapist, that a man cannot shoot an intruder who has broken into his home in order to protect himself, his wife, and his family. He says survival is not the highest good, but is that absolutely, in every situation the case? Obviously it is good in some cases. Otherwise Christ would not have fled when they tried to stone him, otherwise Paul and Peter would not have fled and been commanded by Christ to flee when dissenters tried to kill them. Obviously sometimes living is the highest good, or at least a higher good than not living; that's why we have Romans 13, that's why we have the military, policeman, and neighbors. That is why we have guns.
One last thought, as an aside. At the end of Wilson's review, he gives the book three out of five stars. He gives it a four for holding our attention, a five for "keeping a sense of ethical tension in a world without ethics," and zero stars for "helping Christian young people set their minds and hearts on that which is noble and right." This last rating doesn't make much sense to me. Why score a book that is written by, as far as I know, an unregenerate person who does not claim to be anything other? Would you actually expect to find the unregenerate setting their minds, and their books, on things that are noble and pure and right, when Scripture explicitly says that they cannot? When I read books like the Hunger Games and watch the movie version of it, I do so to be entertained for sure, but more so to see the secular worldview. I want to get a glimpse into the ideas floating around in unbelievers' heads, their questions and answers for this thing we call life (and hopefully in time to finish my own fiction work that illustrates naturally the noble and right things that Wilson and I both desire to see in literature). The book teaches me, it helps me see where the unbelievers are coming from. It is a matter of engaging the culture, of taking it's pulse. And as Francis Schaeffer would say, we should be admiring the works of our unbelieving friends as well, since we are all made in the image of God and to some extent cannot help but do what we were created to reflect and do.
Collins has crafted an admirable novel, with compelling storytelling and quite good, though not quite J.K. Rowling quality writing, and the movie is pretty good to boot. Enjoy them with discernment, for pleasure and as a looking-glass into the unbeliever's worldview and thought process. Do not try to heavily mine them for Christian truth, morality, and nobility. That seems like a no-brainer to me, but the vast majority of Wilson's review is taken up on this issue.
