I don't think the project of Mary Poppins and Batman are all that different. I think the primary difference is that Poppins is working in a much smaller system where change is much easier to make. For his part, Batman is not only fighting crime, but he is also showing Gotham that they need not be afraid thereby empowering people, like Commissioner Gordan, to make change in Gotham. Neither one of them is a savior because neither of them is out to save humanity from its fallenness, both are simply trying to help fallen people live better in community.

Christopher Nolan (the Batman / Dark Knight director) would agree with me. Looking at the films, one can see echoes of Plato's Republic throughout and Nolan, at the conclusion of his second film, places Batman firmly in the role of guardian or knight. In the Nolan interpretation, Batman is not a savior, he is merely the one making room for a savior.

I think the role of guardian is the most appropriate role for any human figure (who's not Christ) to play. Does this mean people, like Mary Poppins, cannot bring about good change? No, it simply means that we cannot turn to a human to save us from the deeper sins of our race.

“Though then why are we so concerned about racial and immigration issues?”

Because real-life is different than the hero myth; in real life, immigration problems (of the kind we are facing now) lead to disorderly conduct, abusive working conditions, and sometimes death. In the hero myth we have purposefully contrived worlds where we are free to employ the deus ex machina without worrying that this new character will bring a flood of a million more like him and burden a system not designed to handle so many living outside the oversight of law and justice.

“Someone who will tell us how to save ourselves but let us have freedom in that choice and subsequent actions. And that strikes me as influenced by Christianity, don't you?”

I suppose that depends who you are speaking with. I think most in the Reformed camp, for example, would argue that we cannot and do not save ourselves in any way, shape, or form. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you that, at some point, we are responsible for our own sanctification and for our decision to come to Christ. I believe in a God that works with human free will.

Have you brought this idea up in class? What do others think of it?

I think the strange visitor can be “typically” anything. I mean, we can think of the strange visitors Zeus and Hermes coming in human form to a city and visiting the people there. Later, Paul and Timothy are mistaken for being those two. In Plato's Sophist (our metathon book for the semester) the Eleadic Visitor is the hero of the story, not Socrates, and although its a difficult book to interpret, I think the Visitor is a sort of savior (philosopher). Also, for 2/3 of the epic, Odysseus IS the strange visitor to many different places. Although “strange visitors” can be invaders, I think there are an equal number of stories where the visitor is a god, or at least welcome.

The story of the strange visitor is not unique to American Culture by any stretch–though it may be particularly resonate with both Americans and Christians because our cultural traditions are steeped in the story of strange visitors (Christ, immigrants, etc).

I also do think that sanctification (I mean this broadly in a “becoming a better person” sort of way) often requires an outside force, be it God, another person or event. Growth and change need a catalyst.

Well, first, Batman and Superman do what others cannot do precisely because they cannot do it for themselves. Certainly there is an element of moral example as well (“What Would Superman Do?”), but no thinking Christian can reduce Christianity and the work of Christ to WWJD. Abelard tried it. Anselm won.

Second, you're using God and Christ interchangeably in, I think, an inappropriate way (in this context). The only reason any human being does good, post-Fall, is the grace of God. And yes, included in that is God's restraining of evil and opening up of opportunities to do good. And this is all synergistic. But this is God the Creator and Sustainer of reality (God qua God), not the incarnate Son. Batman and Superman are not analogies of God per se, but of the Incarnate Savior, Jesus Christ. And in purely human terms, Jesus came to do a work on our behalf that we could not do for ourselves (just as Superman and Batman fight villains that us ordinary folk cannot). And in the process Jesus sets us free from bondage to sin, thereby allowing us to respond to His sacrifice in gratitude with good works.

In other words, whether you're Reformed or not, the analogy between Superman and Christ holds perfectly well in terms of His human nature. Superman is “human” in a sense, but he is enabled to do what ordinary humans cannot do by his super powers, just as Christ is able to do what ordinary humans cannot do by His divine nature.

Am I missing your question?

P.S. I know I'm going to hell for that analogy :p

After a little visit to Wiki I learned some interesting things about PL Travers. And the Disney film took longer than expected to make because she did not like the screen play adaptation. (Disneyification) I read MP and the sequel numerous times in my childhood and never liked the movie as much as the book. There was no slow moving penguin scene in the book. So where do MP's magical powers come from? And in the culture of the early 1900's birthing a child was necessary to preserve genetic purity, but raising one's offspring was not necessary. Think Darwin, survival of the fittest, boarding schools, tutors, etc. And think British royalty to understand that cultural context. So MP is not really a savior as a she causes a conflict with the accepted cultural norms, well maybe that is what a savior does??