Why did Peter Pan scatter the contents of the drawer?

Peter Pan has lost his shadow. After the Darling children are asleep, he calls to Tinker Bell, who is hiding in a jug, to ask where it is. She responds that it is in the big box in the drawer. In his eagerness to get it back, which shows the kind of impulsive, enthusiastic creature Peter Pan is, he scatters the contents of the drawer all over the floor looking for it.
He is so delighted to have found his shadow that he closes Tinker Bell into the drawer without even realizing it and forgets all about her. Then, when he can't figure out how to reattach his shadow to his body, the mercurial boy sits down and sobs until he wakes up Wendy. Wendy sews it back on. 

What is the purpose of the Oxford Movement?

The Oxford Movement originally started out as a campaign to resist church reform. The Church of England, the established Church, was generally regarded as being a department of state. As such, politicians had the power to decide how it was run. In 1832 the Whigs came to power. Among other things, they were sympathetic to Dissenters, that is those Protestants such as Methodists and Presbyterians who weren't part of the Church of England. They were also strong believers in Church reform, and to this end set about the disestablishment of the Anglican Church of Ireland. To many this seemed like a perfectly reasonable measure to apply to a country as overwhelmingly Catholic as Ireland.
To the Whigs' opponents, however, this was the thin end of the wedge. They strongly believed that disestablishment in Ireland would soon be followed by disestablishment of the Church of England, undermining its ancient rights and privileges. In Oxford, the bastion of Anglican Toryism, a group of clerics under the redoubtable leadership of John Henry Newman, set about organizing a formal opposition to the general drift of the Whigs' church reforms.
However, the main focus of the Oxford Movement soon became more overtly theological in nature. The Tractarians, as the the leading lights of the Movement became known, began to examine more closely the status of the Church of England as a state church from a theological standpoint. To that end, they saw the Church of England no longer as simply a department of state which could be meddled and interfered with by politicians, but as the genuine inheritor of the Apostolic tradition, a direct descendent of the early Christian Church. The Tractarians no longer simply wished to defend the Church from Whig reforms; they wanted to reform it from within, transforming the Church's liturgy, administration and, most importantly of all, its spiritual life.
These ideas were expressed in a series of publications called "Tracts for the Times," (Hence the name "Tractarian" to describe a supporter of the Oxford Movement) which proved enormously controversial. Many of the theological ideas contained in the tracts, particularly in relation to personal piety and ecclesiastical reform, were regarded by their opponents as being dangerously close to Roman Catholicism. At that time, Catholicism was still widely feared and distrusted in England, so the taint of "Romanism" was potentially fatal to the Tractarian cause.
The final straw for the Oxford Movement's opponents came with the publication of "Tract 90," written by Newman, and which stated that the foundational Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England were compatible with the Catholic faith. This expressed one of the most fundamental convictions of the Oxford Movement: that the Church of England was basically a Catholic, rather than a Protestant church.
To many people, and not just its die-hard opponents, the Tractarians had gone too far. Newman was ordered by his bishop to cease publication of the Tracts, and this was the beginning of the end for the Oxford Movement. Newman, along with a number of other leading lights of the Movement, subsequently converted to Catholicism, thereby tacitly admitting the truth of the anti-Tractarians' position: that the Church of England as it stood was most emphatically not a Catholic church.
 
http://www.puseyhouse.org.uk/what-was-the-oxford-movement.html

How is the bond story linked with the casket story in The Merchant of Venice?

Both stories turn on the importance of the exact text of a bizarre legal document, and both involve Portia.
The Caskets
In the casket story, the legal document is Portia's father's will, which stipulated that each of her suitors must choose one of three mysterious caskets (small chests).  If the suitor chooses the one that turns out to have Portia's picture inside, he is free to marry her.  
Each casket (gold, silver, or lead) also comes with a riddle, presumably also written by Portia's father.  The riddles are very ambiguous, e.g., "Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves."  Their meaning could be construed very differently depending the reader's expectations. This gives us a glimpse into Portia's father's mind, and his possible reasons for writing his will the way he did.  He wanted Portia's suitors to be sorted out by their interpretations of the challenge.  The one with the best character would choose the right casket. 
It is up to Portia to explain the rules of the challenge to each suitor.  Then, though she knows which is the right casket, she has to keep her mouth shut.  She must refrain from misleading suitors she doesn't like, and from giving a hint to the suitor she really does like (Bassanio).  This is a very hard task, and the fact that she is able to do it shows how great a respect she has for her father and for the letter of his will (though she does not really like the will).  It also shows her willingness not to show off, to keep her knowledge hidden.
The Bond
Unlike the will and the riddles, the bond that Shylock draws up with Antonio is not carefully designed.  It is drawn up in haste.  Antonio thinks it a joke and foolishly signs it. Shylock is in a flurry of secret excitement because here is his chance to get even with Antonio, and like any con man he is eager to get a signature before the victim changes his mind.  Thus they end up with the bond saying that if Antonio does not pay on time, Shylock is entitled to "a pound of flesh" from Antonio.
Despite being poorly thought out, the bond is legal, just like Portia's father's will.   When Antonio is not able to pay on time, Shylock demands what he is entitled to in "my bond," as he calls it.  Antonio's friends offer to pay the amount owed, or even two or three times its value, but Shylock will accept only a pound of flesh, and the bond does not say that the pound of flesh may be waived in exchange for repayment.  Everyone, even the judge, is distressed by the situation.
Enter Portia, disguised as the young lawyer Balthasar. In her argument before the court, she holds up the legality of the bond.  We cannot cast it aside, she says, because it would go down for a precedent, and soon everyone would feel free to break their contracts, all over Venice.  In doing this, she earns the trust of Shylock and of the judge.  But Portia does not uphold the bond simply because it will win her the game. She has great respect for the letter of the law. 
But Portia also knows, from her experience with the caskets and probably from her training under her father before his death, that documents when examined closely do not always say what we thought they said.  So she takes the bond very literally, and finds that it says nothing about blood.  Therefore it is not legal for Shylock to shed any of Antonio's blood.  Thus she turns the words of the bond back on Shylock, just like the words of the riddles were turned back on her unlucky suitors. 
Notice also that in her role as Balthasar, Portia has to use again her skills of keeping her mouth shut and not showing her knowledge.  She does not show who she is. She does not immediately blurt out her winning argument, but leads up to it slowly and even allows Shylock to prepare to cut into Antonio's flesh.  Afterward, when Bassanio thanks her, she still does not blurt out who she is.  She has learned to live and die by the law, to be cool under pressure, and to keep her own council.  That is why she is such an amazing heroine. 

What is the author's style in The Color of Water by James McBride?

The author of The Color of Water, James McBride, uses two very distinct styles in order to convey the different points of view and backgrounds of he and his mother in his memoir/autobiography.
For example, in the odd chapters, he writes in the first-person point of view of his mother, and he uses italics to convey that they are her actual words from an interview. The style is very informal and conversational. For example, in the chapter entitled "Kosher," his mother is describing the many strict, idiosyncratic rules of Judaism to her son, who was not raised in that culture. In her words, he writes:

You need to read up on it because I ain't no expert. They got folks who write whole books about it, go find them and ask them! Or read the Bible! Shoot! Who am I? I ain't nobody! I can't be telling the world this! I don't know! (p. 17)

In contrast, in the even chapters, McBride describes his childhood experiences using a very formal, descriptive tone with figurative language and imagery in order to help the reader picture what is happening. For example, when describing how his white mother rode a bicycle in their black neighborhood he writes:

She rode so slowly that if you looked at her from a distance it seemed as if she weren't moving, the image frozen, painted against the spring sky, a middle-aged white woman on an antique bicycle with black kids zipping past her on Sting-Ray bikes and skateboards, popping wheelies and throwing baseballs that whizzed past her head, tossing firecrackers that burst all around her (p.8)

McBride uses these starkly different styles to serve different purposes. In the odd chapters, he is strictly providing his mother's version of her life from her point of view, so he sticks to the language she used during her interviews. The informal style of her dialogue, such as her use of slang and vernacular, reveal her background: she was a child of immigrant parents who was forced to work hard from a young age and, therefore, had a limited education, so she had to be tough and direct.
On the other hand, McBride's eloquent, descriptive voice reveals how different his life's path was from his mother's. It was clear that he had formal training in writing and a great education (because of her). Although she was poor and uneducated and had to raise twelve children with little help, she instilled the importance of education and faith in her children, which meant that his accomplishment of becoming a writer was also hers, and his memoir was a tribute to her.

The Color of Water is a combined autobiography and memoir. In the odd-numbered chapters, McBride tells the story of his mother in her own voice, and these chapters use italics. He is able to capture the voice of his mother, a Jewish woman who later told her children that she was a light-skinned black woman. For example, in Chapter 1, he writes in his mother's voice, "My family mourned me when I married your father. They said kaddish and sat shiva" (page 2). He uses the Hebrew words that his mother might have used as a child, and he captures his mother's world. 
In even-numbered chapters, he tells his own story in a non-italicized font. He writes about his confusion about his mother's identity in his own voice, one that is very different from that of his mother. He writes, for example, "Mommy's contradictions crashed and slammed against one another like bumper cars in Coney Island" (page 29). Eventually, he puts together the story of his mother's identity in a memoir that is made more powerful by combining his voice with that of his mother. 

Exactly how did the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the Nicaean Creed change Christian's attitudes to Jews?

The subject of Judaism was not central to the Emperor Constantine’s decision to convene the Council of Nicaea in  325 AD, but the council’s actions certainly occurred against a backdrop of rampant anti-Semitism propagated by the Church. The most significant actions of those gathered in the city of Nicaea involved an agreement to recognize Jesus Christ as a divine being, as formalized in what became known as the Nicene Creed. The operative passage from the creed reads as follows:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

Constantine and others assembled placed the highest priority on a resolution of the debate over Jesus’s status because the Arians, followers of the priest Arius, rejected the notion of Jesus as a divine being on the same level as God. The Nicene Creed institutionalized among most Christians the status of Jesus as part of the “Blessed Trinity.”
With respect to the Council of Nicaea’s interest in the Jewish people, the council did adopt positions that further isolated the Jews by, among other acts, drawing a clearer distinction between the Jewish and Christian Sabbaths. This included manipulating the day on which Easter would be observed to ensure that it would be more distant from the Jewish observance of Passover. The council’s decisions came as close as possible without crossing a very delicate line in demonizing Jews by prohibiting marriages between Christians and Jews and by restricting business and other types of relationships. The Council of Nicaea is credited with laying the groundwork for subsequent councils to further institutionalize anti-Semitism within Christianity. Indeed, the Nicene Creed’s formalization of the notion of Jesus as a divine being, the result of internal Christian arguments over Jesus’s status, served to further isolate Jews by cementing the elevation of Jesus above figures revered by Jews, such as Moses.
http://anglicansonline.org/basics/nicene.html

https://www.petahtikvah.com/Articles/ANTIJUDAISM.htm

Why is Charles Dickens's novel Great Expectations more interesting because it is written in the first person point of view?

A lot of readers prefer novels written in the first person perspective because they believe it is more interesting.  It is an interesting way to write a novel because it allows the author to build greater character development for a single character.  Readers really get to understand the narrating character because everything is from that character's perspective.  We get to see every action made, and we know about every thought that happens.  
Additionally, a first person perspective can really draw a reader into the story.  It does this because a reader can't help but project their own body/mind into the narrator's position.  The narrator uses the words "I" and "me" to tell a story.  When this happens, I (me personally) am drawn into that character much more so than if the narrator used "he."  I'm not as invested in a character if I'm not a part of that character.   That is probably why I enjoy first person video games so much.  They make me feel like I am the character and in charge.  
Furthermore, first person narration is interesting because it doesn't explain everything.  There is so much that is unknown.  Because Pip is telling the story, I know his thoughts; however, I can't know another character's thoughts unless he/she speaks them.  There is so much that is hidden from the reader, so I find myself always wondering what a new character's motivations are.  Is this person lying?  Is this person really trying to help Pip?  Things like that can't be known until the other person says something or does something.  A greater sense of tension can be built with first person narration, and that is why I find it a very interesting point of view.  

What is the difference between theme and subject?

The subject of a book or story is what it is about. In a fictional work, the subject is called the plot. It is what happens: Miss Marple finds a dead body in the parlor, then the police come, then Mr. Brown is arrested, and so on. In a nonfiction work, the subject again is what the book is about in a factual way. It is the sequence of events that unfold: a man goes with his family to Berlin to be ambassador in 1933 and meets Adolph Hitler, etc. The subject of a book answers the what question: what happened first, second, third, etc.
The theme is the message or meaning the work is trying to communicate. It is the why question. Why did the writer write it? What is the underlying point the author is trying to make? For example, a fiction writer of a murder mystery may be trying to send the message that appearances are deceiving and that we should think carefully and explore more deeply before we jump to the conclusion someone is a murderer. The non-fiction writer of the history of the ambassador to Berlin in an extraordinary period of history might be trying to communicate the sense of psychological stress and unease that even privileged people experienced living in a regime based on surveillance and terror. That would be the message or theme that would stick with you long after specific facts faded.
Even books that seem to have no theme almost always communicate a message. A book about how a chicken lays an egg and how it hatches may seem simply an informational work for a young child, but it fact it communicates deeper themes or messages, such as that the world is a safe and orderly place in which natural events proceed in a knowable way.

The subject of a book, short story, or poem is what it is about, but the theme is the moral or lesson.  For example, Great Expectations is about a young boy who is given a fortune from a secret benefactor so that he can become a benefactor.  That is the plot.  The theme is that you should care more about people and love than money.  While focusing on money, the young protagonist Pip becomes an awful person.  He realizes after some tumultuous events that people are more important than money.
Books have more than one theme usually, depending on their length and complexity.  You can determine the theme by the message the author is trying to convey to the reader.  The topic of the book, story, or poem will be related to the theme because authors use a story to convey the theme.