Honor the Sabbath ... aka How to Avoid Losing Your Mind

Some Crazy I found wandering around the facility.

So I crewed on a feature film this summer.  We shot inside an abandoned insane asylum, one from the eighteenth century that was filled with bats and dark tunnels and crumbling wallpaper.  It was a horror film (obviously) – and also a horror production.  Definitely one of the most stressful jobs I’ve ever worked.  Lack of preparation meant we were constantly tripping over ourselves in a desperate attempts to keep things organized.  But it’s tricky business, tying your shoe laces while running the 400 Meter Dash.  Basically, the film just needed two more months in the Preproduction Oven.  

Now I actually enjoy stressful situations.  Trying to manage them is like surfing; you learn to ride on the cusp of mayhem.  So for the first few days, I threw myself into the mess, not caring how insane it was.  And I got pretty wet, inhaled large quantities of ocean.  It was one of those fighting-just-to-stay-afloat scenarios.  I kept telling people, “I’m sorry things aren’t up to code, they will be soon.  It’s just going to take some time to find our rhythm.”  Because it always takes a little time to hit your stride, even when things are organized.  So I had hope. 

Second week, things didn’t improve much.  And I’m not sure why they didn’t.  It might have something to do with the long hours.  We were working twelve (or fourteen)-hour days, six days a week.  If this were Oregon Trail, our wagon pace was “Strenuous.”  And as we all learned from Oregon Trail, you can’t maintain the “Strenuous” pace very long before your oxen start dying.  But regardless of the reasons, the fact was things were still disorganized and people were still stressed out of their minds.  And I began to worry that we weren’t going to hit our stride.

Ok, so here’s where the Sabbath part comes in.  From the moment I was hired, I knew I was going to have to be really careful with my day off.  Because we were going to working six days, which meant there’d be no time for prep/catch up … except on that seventh day.  So upon arrival, I gallantly declared to my coworkers that I refused to work on my day off.  Because I don’t believe man was made to run 24/7.  The Sabbath is part of the original work rhythms established by God at the beginning of creation.  It’s also one of the Ten Commandments, right up there with Thou Shalt Not Lie, Steal, or Commit Adultery.  It was a matter of spiritual obedience.  But I didn’t say all that.  I just said I was going to need my day off.  Which was absolutely true.

As previously outlined, the shoot went down like a runaway train.  I could barely keep up with the pace, and since my job consisted of laying the tracks in front of said runaway train, I felt the strain of disorganization quite acutely.  It reminded me of college finals week:  the break-neck pace and the overwhelming workload, the insane stress levels, the exhaustion-induced depressed immune system.  All this translated to an increased need for rest … and the simultaneous increased need for preparation/catch up. 

But the first Saturday (our day off) I held my ground.  I slept late, relaxed, re-centered my soul, listened to a sermon podcast, hung out with friends, saw a movie.   And I only did a couple hours of work in the evening before bed.  Which stunk.  Those two hours somehow managed to erase all the peace I’d recouped earlier that day.   

The second Saturday did not fare so well.  I woke up with a worry pit in my stomach (which had nothing to do with the loaded Shirley Temple from the night before).  So instead of sleeping in, I decided to get up and get some work done right away, so I could relax the rest of the day.  I got to the Production Office around 10 am.  I didn’t leave the Production Office until 10 pm.  It was horrible.  I did accomplish some much-needed reorganization and communication.  But the work just never ended.  And it was cursed work too; everything I accomplished got ripped to shreds before the end of the night.   BLEH!!!

Funny story:  By 8 pm, the First Assistant Director (whom I’d coerced into helping me all day) was ready to be done.  We’d just spent the entire day working; all our ducks were in a row, their backs against a brick wall, ready to be executed by firing squad the next morning.  My compatriot threw down his papers and said, “We are done!  I’m leaving for dinner in 5 minutes.”  Being a girl, I said, “Dude, I haven’t even put on makeup yet today.  At least give me 7 minutes to pull myself together.”  Fool.  In those two extra minutes, two major schedule meltdowns occurred and we didn’t escape the office for another two hours.  And when we finally did leave to get food, we waited for ten-plus minutes in the Arby’s Drive-Thru (yes, I know that’s a whiny #firstworldproblem, but seriously think about how long ten minutes feels at 10 pm).  Also there was a ghetto car behind us in the line, blasting low-frequency bass music which translated to a dull mind-numbing roar in our ears.  It was laughable how terrible the day was.  Or cryable, depending on your proximity to a pillow.

That next day, our “Monday,” I remember being exhausted.  So incredibly exhausted.  And for the rest of that third week, I couldn’t make headway on anything.  I mean, sure I kept busy and threw a lot of energy into things.  But none of my efforts were productive.  Which freaked me out – I knew I wasn’t pulling my weight, which meant I was letting the production down and adding to my teammates’ burdens.  But I couldn’t figure out what I was doing wrong.  I sort of lost consciousness during this time – whenever someone asked me what I’d done all day I couldn’t tell them. 

Then I began grooming an assistant to help me with scheduling.  Having someone following me around made me realize how much time I spent trouble-shooting daily issues instead of working ahead on the next day’s schedule.  I was jumping up every two minutes to answer the walkie talkie or my cell phone.  And due to this constant reacting (plus the lack of sleep), I had developed a mental condition in which I couldn’t focus on anything for more than three seconds, which I call “Goldfish Memory.”  Obviously, this was counter-productive on every level.   And I began to see the error of my ways. 

Because I hadn’t taken a day off, I had seriously reduced my productivity.  My energy levels were low (though not too low), but my mental agility was ridiculously low.  I simply couldn’t cope with issues in a creative or aggressive manner.  Furthermore, I was spiritually drained.  I didn’t even have the energy to invest in prayer or Bible-reading.  Basically I was subsisting on politeness and random prayers of desperation.  And I could feel my soul becoming more fragile and selfish. 

Needless to say I took my third Saturday very seriously – I saw a movie, hung out, did laundry, went for a walk along the river and listened to a sermon or two, called my family.  It was so beautiful.  Like Jesus said, the Sabbath was made for man.  One day a week is fundamentally necessary to refresh/reset one’s body, mind, and soul.  Otherwise you get consumed by your work.  And then your work consumes you and you become a shriveled skeleton running on coffee.

When I came home, the first sermon I heard was about honoring the Sabbath.  Had to smirk – I see what you did there, God.  The pastor was talking about our need for rest, and how many people are chronically sleep-deprived and over-stressed – without even realizing it!  He asked the congregation to consider the spiritual and worshipful nature of rest and play.  Furthermore, he drew out the implications of resting in the midst of work.  Taking a break from one’s job – especially when the job seems to need more attention – is a demonstration of one’s priorities.  Not working on the Sabbath says ‘my God is more important than my job.’  Not to oversimplify it, as if God were not involved in my work or the two are antithetical, but the Sabbath is a long-established sacred life rhythm in which man is called to rest in God’s provision and cease his labor.  So disregarding the Sabbath is disrespecting and disobeying God.  Dang; conviction in my heart. 

It’s funny, thinking back to the first day of production, when I fully intended to honor the Sabbath.  What changed?  Nothing, except that the more I got involved the more I felt “responsible” for the production.   I worked through my days off because I felt it was my duty as Second Assistant Director.  But that was a lie.  God certainly calls us to be responsible; He does not call us to kill ourselves for our jobs.  It wasn’t just responsibility that prompted my overtime labor.  It was a desire to perform well and please others.  That is what prompted me to throw out my well-reasoned commitments. 

Not to say that there is never a time to “work” on the Sabbath.  Like Jesus said, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.  And Jesus himself demonstrated these exceptions, like when he supernaturally healed people on the Sabbath.  But somehow I don’t think helping a low-budget horror film get organized is quite on par with making the lame walk. 

So in conclusion, I experienced a very hard lesson about the importance of Sabbath day rest.  It’s simply one of the life-rhythms God established at the beginning of Creation.  Furthermore, it is a holy blessing, intended to restore our hearts/minds/souls to eternal realities, the things that truly matter, and pull us out of the pain and drama of the daily grind.  This is the only way you keep sane in the midst of life's insanity.  Especially when you’re shooting a horror film at an insane asylum.

Confessions of a Gulag-Dweller

A rare snippet of beauty found in the Gulag.  Fine!  A not-so-rare snippet.
Photo credit to Shannon.

Well, I'm moving out.  Heading for an apartment in the city.  My first apartment.  Sweet freedom.  Independence.  Adulthood/maturity (hopefully).  Which means my time in the Gulag is almost done.

Wow.  I guess I didn't realize that my confinement in the Gulag would eventually end ... darn it!  I would have exuded more energy and tolerance if I had known this was temporary.  (Sort of like when you’re working out and you think you’ve still got 20 minutes left, so you don’t push too hard, so as to ration energy, and then suddenly the treadmill shuts off and you’re like, “Drat, I totally could have given it my all.”  Unless you're like me, in which case you just think, “THANK HEAVENS ITS OVER!!!”)

Honestly, though, a hometown is a wonderful place to live.  It is a valid community, filled with amazing, wonderful people living more-than-legit lives.  Life at home is chock full of opportunities for wonder and grace and truth and grandeur.  There’s nothing wrong with the Gulag!!!   But it is a slower pace of life.  Maybe a little too slow sometimes.  Or at least, too slow for a young person who's fresh out of college, ready to take on the world.  DAHHHHH!!!  I just want to GO.  I want to move faster, learn more, try new things, and build stuff (specifically movie stuff).  I want to do new.  So in the rather unkind words of George Bailey, “I’m shaking the dust of this crummy little town and I’m gonna’ see the world!  I’m gonna’ build skyscrapers a mile high and bridges a mile long ..."

However, I know that many of my friends just graduated, and are currently facing their own daunting Gulag imprisonments.  In the eight months of my confinement, I had a lot of time to think about life, get depressed, eat ice cream, and jog away my sorrows. So I'd like to pass on some Gulag wisdom/encouragement.  Please take it with a grain of salt (and a spoonful of sugar):

·    Loneliness and boredom can kill.  They are merciless slayers of personality and mental stability.  So don’t let yourself get too bored or lonely.  Keep busy.  Take up a blog, a TV show, a hobby, a hobby horse, or even a hobby farm.  Ignore any ideas for “fun” activities that pop into your head late at night in the dead of winter: 

   “Hey, Erin, walk down the gravel road for a few miles in the dark and see what happens!!”
   “What if a coyote starts following me?”
   “They don’t attack people!  Think about how creepy it would be!!  All your friends on Facebook would love it.”
   “I don’t enjoy creepy fun.  And I don’t have any friends.  Plus that’d be really cold.”
   “Good point.  Why don't you drink hot cocoa and huddle in a blanket for warmth instead.”
(Another reason to avoid getting too lonely ... you begin having Smeagol/Gollum conversations with yourself.) 

·    Your mind, brilliant as it is, cannot entertain itself for months on end.  You do need stimulation, external mental stimulation.  So please read some books, blogs, or even old homework essays (it may come to that).  Just make sure its stuff that makes you think.  You don’t want to become mentally obese; all intake with no processing or output.  You’ll feel like a zombie: sluggish, slow, and fated for an eternal half-life existence.  Mental exercise is critical to maintaining sanity.

·    Jogging (aka the cursed “physical exertion”) could save your life.  When there’s not enough going on socially/mentally to make you feel like a valued member of society, go for a run so that at least you’ve struggled and overcome something that day.  It’ll burn off some frustration too.  Heck, it might even zap a few calories.  All good things to those who jog.

·    Isolation = Anxiety Orgy.  Not cool.  Also, wrong and unhealthy.  Be thankful for the past, be prepared for the future, and be content with the present.  Decline the invitation to cross bridges you haven’t come to yet.  Don’t allow your imagination to play with your fears.  Watch lots of kitten videos.  Do a lot of praying.

·    Re-entering society does not cure you of selfishness or anxiety.  It only distracts you from the ever-present fear and calibrates your sense of social decency.  Which is actually still a pretty good deal when you’re depressed.  Just remember:  the grass may be greener on the other side, but it’ll still need mowing.

·    It took me a while to see it, but it sure is beautiful out in the country.  In a quiet, still sort of way.  It’s hard to see the beauty of the things you’ve looked at for twenty-some years.  I wonder if I’ll miss the gentle rolling hills of farm land and sandy gravel road.  On the other hand, glad I’m getting out before it turns into a barren wasteland full of disgusting bugs, heavy with moisture and heat, overexposed into flat shades of gold under the brutal summer sun.  Plus my apartment will have AIR CONDITIONING!!!  A basic necessity I’ve done without for the past twenty years of my life.  Civilization at last.

Let's be clear:  there’s nothing wrong with living at home.  You will need to adjust to a different rhythm of life, but that’s not so terrible (for a limited amount of time).  Hold out hope, enjoy the moment, make friends, serve the community, pray and jog frequently, and keep sending out ye’ olde resume.   Tis your ticket to freedom.  Unless you find a golden ticket inside a candy bar.  In which case, rip up your resume and start researching Munchkin Labor Union regulations. 

Zombies and Government, part 2

Eat your breakfast, brush your hair, slay a Zombie. 
The Dinglehopper 2012.  Maximum efficiency.

Not too many people question Government’s legitimacy as an institution these days.  That is, no one lies awake at night, agonizing over whether they ought to secede from the Union, become a monk, and go live on a previously-undiscovered island.  Government is here to stay.  Everyone accepts that.  The only question left is what to do with it.  What can I expect from the system?  What is it here for?  *cautiously pokes grey lump of “Government”*  Is it edible? 

This is the really critical half of the essay, ‘cause this part explores Government’s role in society.  And since we live in a democratic republic with a free voting system, your understanding of the role of Government eventually manifests itself in the functioning of the real-time government.  It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, for better or for worse.

Unfortunately, there are bucket-loads of confusion over this, on both the political Left and the political Right.  In spite of all the appeals to the rightness/wrongness of certain campaigns and policies, no one is really considering the purpose of Government.  Sometimes I think we don’t respect Government as anything more than a means to advance our agendas (I’m not implying agendas are evil).  And it is a way to advance an agenda, obviously.  But it’s more than just that.  It may be a tool to be manipulated, but like any tool it has a specific purpose and intention.  We shouldn’t use our forks as hairbrushes, just because we need to detangle our hair or because “dinglehopper” has a nice ring to it. 

Here’s the thing:  Government has a God-given role to play in society.  And it’s much grander than just being the national scoreboard, the majority rule.  It is a specific institution, with a specific job to do.  And there are boundaries to its influence (or there ought to be).  It is not the National Mother, here to nurture indefinitely.  It is not the National Child, here to kowtow qualities of the “perfect human being.”  It is not the National God, here to define morality and justice.  It is a system established and defined by God, intended to serve the community.  The question is how did God intend the government to serve the community?  

Specifically, a government exists for the defense of persons and their property, and the liberty necessary for the creation of property.  In other words, it’s realm of influence is limited to the defense of every citizen’s life, every citizen’s property, and every citizen’s freedom to create property. 

Let me address each of the three points separately.  And please ignore any similarities between this and the Declaration of Independence.   I assure you it was completely accidental.  Or maybe not so much.  Regardless, I shall defend this thesis independently of the Super Smart Guys.

Government exists for the defense of persons … 

It’s a time-honored tradition (ala Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:1 and most of human history) for Government to defend its citizens’ lives.   But that’s a pretty vague statement.  Defend from what?  From external threat, as in the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor?  From inter-personal threat, as in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer murdering people?  From intra-personal threat, as in the case of Amy Winehouse overdosing on drugs?  And what constitutes persons – how do you define “life?”  Being born?  Having a heart-beat?  Brain-wavlings?  80% lung-capacity?  I hesitate to put qualifiers on life, because I know people who lack some of these “standards components”, and yet are very much alive.  And I don’t want to say that Government is responsible for stabilizing every citizen at some medically-defined life status.  Not only would that be impossible, it’d be very wrong.  I’m not sure why it’d be wrong, but I know it would be.  Hmmm … why?

Ok, ok, let’s take this back to basics, before Government’s involvement.  Every person has been granted existence by God, an existence which is precious and sacred.  Therefore, it’s a basic human right to exist.  If you exist, you have the right further pursue existence.  No one has the right to take your existence away (except in the case of capital punishment, in which case you forfeited that right) from you.  To be sure, you retain the right to pursue existence … or to not pursue existence, just as you retain the right to pursue God or to not pursue God.  It’s morally wrong to not pursue existence, but that’s a fundamental choice which must be allowed to occur.  (And now my Arminian influences are showing.) 

In keeping with Government’s role in facilitating the functioning/existence of a community, a government must defend each member of the community’s existence.  More precisely, Government must defend each existing citizen’s right to pursue existence. 

Government exists for the defense … of property …

Defending persons sounds legit.  But defending property?  Isn’t that just a capitalistic assumption?  No – Government must defend property because property is an extension of person!

Think about.  My iPod is mine because I traded 300 dollars for it.  Those 300 dollars are mine because I traded labor for it.  The labor is mine, because I exerted my intelligent will, which manifested in physical labor.  Therefore, the iPod is an extension of my person, a physical expression of my will.  To be clear, the iPod is not an extension of myself, my personhood.  It’s not a critical element of my being.  But it is a natural extension (or “manifestation”) of my person.  Or technically speaking, it’s a representation of the manifestation.  The actual manifestation consisted of … beads of sweat, I suppose.  But sweat beads make for flimsy currency, so long ago the ancients decided gold, chickens, and iPods were better units of currency.

Ok, that’s some fancy rhetorical footwork, but where’s the beef?  Can the idea of property be backed up in the Bible?  [WARNING:  theological tangent impending]  This concept of property is a direct descendant of the Creator-creation relationship.  How did the world come to exist?  The triune God created the world out of the overflow of His love for Himself – it was a manifestation of the movement of His will.  The fabric of the universe originated in His actual person, which is why the universe unequivocally belongs to its Creator.

In case you’re wondering, yes, this is a form of panentheism (which says that the world exists in the mind of God and is an extension of God, in some sense).  However, this form of panentheism distinguishes between the person of God and the personhood of God.  The world is an extension of God’s person, a manifestation of His will, but it is not a component of His personhood.  To say it is a component of His personhood is to claim that God needed to create the world, in order to fulfill Himself.  That absolutely shatters God’s self-sufficiency and sovereignty, and it wrongly grants the creation a measure of divinity.  That understanding of the Creator-creation relationship is only one frail guardrail away from falling into the abyss of pantheism (where everything is god, good and evil are the same, and individuality doesn’t really exist). 

Think about what a mistake it is, on a human level, to consider property a component of personhood– isn’t that materialism at its worst, when people think their things define them?  And yet, if we go to the other extreme and deny the connection between an artist and the things he sculpts, builds, orchestrates, we sever the connection between the material and the immaterial.  In doing so, we dishonor each other and destroy the means of communion and creativity – the fundamentals of being human (also the foundations of community, and by extension, Government).  On a theological level, we deny the inherent bond between God and the world. 

Property is a real extension of persons, and therefore Government must defend citizen’s right to own property.  (Btw, all this theory is based on a philosophy class I took in college, taught by one of my favorite professors, Dr. Walter Schultz, in which we examined Jonathan Edward’s “Dissertation … Concerning the End for which God Created the World”.)

[WARNING:  extensive digression/counterargument ahead]  Hmmm, this explains the concept of property, but it doesn’t explain the concept of representation of property.  Because if you trace all the trade deals back to the beginning, there’s someone standing there holding a dead rabbit saying “This is mine,” without having traded anyone for it.  I can’t think of any other explanation for how other non-manifested representations jump into the trading game.  Bleh, I’m not communicating this conundrum very well!  Let me illustrate it: 

Say back in the Garden of Eden, Adam writes a blues ballad and then tries to sell it on eBay.  A random buyer named Eve agrees to trade him one apple for the rights to the ballad.  My question is, how did Eve get ownership of that apple?  Whom did she trade her sweat beads to, in exchange for that apple?  It wasn’t Adam.  So how did she get it?  At some point, in order to get the apple currency thing going, Eve must have said, “I claim this apple as mine.”  And I’m not sure how she justified that.  Maybe because she saw it first.  Maybe because she tended to the apple tree and therefore had some sort of natural trade rights thing going on.  I don’t know.  I’m not sure what I think of this little concept. 

I guess it’s in keeping with Genesis 1:28:  “And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the ear, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moves upon the earth.”  But how do you determine who gets to claim what?  How do you avoid issues like the American government claiming Native American lands as their own?  I don’t know what to think on this.  Speak out, reader-buddies, if you have any thoughts.

[And resume post]

Government exists for the defense … of the liberty necessary for the creation of property.

So we’ve established that Government is here to defend persons and the physical manifestation of persons, aka property.  So where does this “liberty” business come in?  Liberty, defined as the freedom necessary for the creation of property, is the bridge between the immaterial soul and the material product. 

Let's say a cow represents the average citizen.  (Sorry, I know this is a random analogy, but I live by a lot of cows, and occasionally they wander into my essays.)  If Government is to defend both ends of said cow (the front end, which contains the not-so-genius creativity, and the tail end, which is the physical ... er, output), it must also defend the in-between part (the digestive tract, I guess).  Wow, I’ve never thought of it like that before.  Liberty is the digestive tract.  That is deep - deeply disgusting!  Cows are forever banned from my essays.  Oh!  But that analogy also illustrates man’s inability to create ex-nihilo (make something out of nothing).  Unlike God, who created the world out of nothing but His person/will/mind, cows only create things by chewing their cud, aka processing something that’s already been created.  Cow + Grass = Cowpie (sorry - hope you weren't on lunch break!) 

Which kind of reinforces the idea that, at some point, claiming apples (or grass, if you're a cow) is ok.  At least for the purpose of further creation.  If you’ve worked with the apples – tended the tree, baked a pie, whatever – then you’ve processed them, and they’ve become a part of the manifestation of your will, making them “yours.”

But if Government doesn’t defend the period between the Lightbulb Moment (“Hey, maybe I’ll skin a bunch of apples, throw them in a pot with some flour and cinnamon and sugar, and, I don’t know - bake it for 30 minutes?”) and the Apple Pie-on-the-Table Moment (*scraping/licking of plate*), apple pie would never happen.  And we would be severely repressed/depressed/skinny human beings.  Seriously, think how dark the world would be without apple pie.  This is why Government must defend liberty.  Also because liberty is the missing link between persons and property, two previously defined tenets of Government-involvement.  (Now, I realize that “liberty” is pretty loosely defined right now, and that perimeters need to be discussed.  However, I’m coming up on 2000 words, and I need to wrap up this post.  Ergo, I’ll leave that to you, dear reader-buddy.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in conclusion, Persons, Property, and the Bridge between persons and property – that’s the realm of Government.  Anything else is off-limits to them.  Strictly off-limits.  That doesn’t mean that other kinds of societal issues aren’t important.  It just means that Government is not the right tool to use to correct the situation.  Other/better tools might include the local community.  Volunteer groups.  The Church.  Rich philanthropists.  Poor/busy/selfish individuals like you and me. 

Which has some interesting implications.  Very interesting implications.  On that note, here are some questions I’ve been asking myself lately:

Should the government be defining marriage?  What does that have to do with persons, property, or the liberty to create property?  Should any government be the world’s Policeman?  Isn’t that outside the bounds of defending its own citizens’ persons, property, and liberty?  How then should we deal with genocide/atrocities in other countries?  Should the government be supporting people with basic medical coverage?  Is that part of the defending persons’ existence?  Again, how then do we define existence?  I mean, Zombies don't qualify for Medicaid ... do they?

Zombies and Government, part 1

Not even the White House snipers could stay the Zombie hordes.
Photo credit to a brave photojournalist who sacrificed himself while documenting the final horrific hours of the American Apocalypse.

It's 2020.  All world civilization has been destroyed by zombies.  America is gone.  Australia is gone.  Antarctica in all its penguin-glory is gone.  The zombies are also gone– apparently they're not impervious to hydrogen bombs.  Unfortunately, most of the people are dead too.

There were some survivors, of course, but any semblance of organized society has been blown away.  Literally.  See, in the second-to-last battle – before the dropping of the H-bombs – the Zombies employed a massive EMP blackout, effectively killing all electronic records and systems of communication and administration.   And any/all paper copies were burned in after-fires of the bombings.  So basically, the world is back to a state of nature.

The burning question on everyone's lips, I'm sure, is how should the roving bands of survivors conduct themselves?  What is justice after a zombie apocalypse?  What is government?  Is it even needed?  Should it be left in the ashes of the apocalypse?  Would people ultimately be better off without a government?  Dun-dun-duhhhhh ... 

So I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about government lately.  Not because it’s campaign season, but because it’s what we’ve been discussing in Sunday school lately.  (Irony for the win!)  But let’s be clear:  I am not into politics.  I care more about culture - the implicit transmission of ideas and values into society – than government – the explicit application of ideas and values onto society.

Natheless, I am a member of a political system; I am a citizen.  And as long as I choose to participate in this system (aka retain citizenship), I have a duty to understand and contribute to the system.  Furthermore, I am a human being (big surprise, right?), living in a world composed of several realms of operation, each established by God.  And that world is set up to function properly through the interplay of these institutions.  One such institution is the State government.  

Typically, my posts consist of me rambling on about my feelings on a certain issue, but today I’d rather just straight-up outline my concept of the State, old-school philosopher style.  And then I’ll break down the thesis, and … er, ramble about each section.  (Dang habits!)  Ok, here we go: 

Government is the administration of a community, necessary only for interdependent functioning.  As an effect of the collective, government’s authority is derived from the individuals who comprise the community.  Specifically, government exists for the defense of persons and their property, and the liberty necessary for creativity (the creation of property).  In other words, government’s proper roles are the defense of every citizen’s life, every citizen’s property, and every citizen’s freedom to create property.  

Now, let me defend that thesis.  And let me define the perimeters of my defense.  I will not reference political theory experts (such as Locke, Blackstone, or Montesquieu), as if they were primary sources on the ‘invention of law.’  Obviously, I’ve been influenced by their ideas.  But I refuse to accept their definitions of government, simply because they (the Super Smart Guys) said it.  If government is a God-ordained institution, then its principles should be self-evident and universally true, not something cooked up by some intellectuals from the 1800’s.  So instead, my defense will reference the Bible and utilize fundamental principles of reality.  Hopefully these principles will be self-evident (undeniable, once understood).  Whether or not they resemble the real or fictitious ideas of the Super Smart Guys will be merely coincidence.  Oh, and just a note on the structure of this thesis:  The first half addresses the validity of government as an institution, the second half address the nature of government as an institution.  

Ok, let’s break down the first half, the case for the legitimacy of government: 

Government is the administration of a community, necessary only for interdependent functioning.  Government is not always necessary.  Like in the case of a Zombie Apocalypse, where only one person survives.  Or say two people survive, but then one guy accidently chokes on a can of peaches.  At that point, you can’t really have any sort of system of government, ‘cause it’s basically just you, yourself, and you.  Government is only necessary to the functioning of a collective.  And in that case, it is necessary; living with another free-willed being automatically compromises one’s autonomy.   Plus, it requires negotiation and a standardization of procedure and authority.   I’m sorry, that’s just a fact of life, if you intend to live in any sort of society.  If you don’t like society, that’s fine, go live in a cave by yourself.  But make sure it’s a cave that no one owns, or you’ll have landlords to pay (and business transactions do count as community).  Also make sure it’s a cave that no one else will ever find.  Otherwise, you’ll occasionally have to deal with wayward hikers.  And shooting trespassers is not allowed, even if you’re not interested in communing with them.  (There’s this thing called “basic human rights,” which applies even outside of government-defined society.) 

As an effect of the collective, government’s authority is derived from the individuals who comprise the community.  In other words, the State has no God-given rights.  At least, not the way human beings have God-given rights.  Rather that State has a God-given role/responsibility, namely to serve the community and uphold the moral code (but more on that later).  The important thing is that the State has no special rights/privileges/influence over its citizens.  Instead, the citizens are the ones who grant authority to the government.  

That said, individuals cannot delegate any authority they haven’t already been granted by God.  Which has interesting implications for the justice system.  Government, as an extension of individuals, is still tied to a moral code.  Note, this is not an argument against capital punishment.  Genesis 9:6 makes it clear that justice demands a life for a life.  “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”  And Romans 13:1-7 makes it clear that justice, including capital punishment, is a long-held government responsibility.  

Counterargument:  But doesn't Romans 13:1-7 imply that government is appointed by God, and is therefore above and independent of its citizens?  Well, the institution (the structure and the concept) has been appointed by God.  And the authority is ultimately a derivative of the general authority God has delegated to mankind (Gen 9:1-17).  But government is only a by-product of the community, not the foundation of the community.  You can see evidences of this, even in the way Israel’s monarchy was run.  The spiritual systems (aka the Ten Commandments, the Levitical system, the Mosaic covenant, etc.) and ethnic relationships (genetic nationality) were in place long before any sort of federal government was established.  And if you recall the origin story of the first king of Israel (aka Dude Saul), he was appointed by the prophet Samuel – a guy trained as a priest who became Israel’s top Judge (a highly spiritual community leader).   

Spirituality forms the basis of community, which gives birth to government.  Government is downstream of Society, and at the headwaters of Society is Spirituality. 

Drawing Lines

Sometimes the Vines overtake the Lines.
Photo cred to Shannon and/or Me.

Been thinking about the MECCA again.  And I’m realizing that the MECCA is very good at drawing the proverbial "line in the sand.”   

Taking a stand.  Fighting like a warrior.  Dying like a martyr.   

Why are we so quick to draw lines?  Why are we so quick to call activities Good or Bad?  More importantly, why are we so quick to identify people as Them or Us?  And why do we withdraw from the “Them” so quickly?   

I’m not saying that it’s wrong to call something Bad (‘cause that’d be self-contradicting, sillies).  But I’m not sure that our eagerness to condemn something as “Bad,” or that our stringent, sterile, hands-off way of dealing with “Bad” people/things is healthy.  Sure it makes a lot of martyrs.  But are they necessary martyrdoms?  And are the martyrs the only victims?  What if we’re accidentally cutting ourselves off from people who God is moving in, only we can’t see the movement because it’s on the 3^rd Dream level?   

How did we get so darn trigger-happy, anyways?   

Maybe as children we accidentally OD’d on inspiration posters, the kind that said “Stand for Something or you’ll Fall for Anything” or “What is Popular is not always Right, and What is Right is not always Popular.”  They frequently featured a Bald Eagle or a school of Clown Fish, with one little guy swimming alone.  I used to fixate on those posters during English class, specifically on the lonely fish.  I identified with the lonely little fish, fighting for justice.  Accordingly, I took an oath to always “stand up for what’s Right.”   So when the teacher left the room and the other kids wanted to turn off the lights before she came back, I was the kid who got up and flipped the lights back on.  And I was the kid who coughed whenever someone swore.  Not surprisingly, I became the martyr I knew I was destined to be.  The lonely fish.

Ok, enough sob story.  The point is, when I was heavily involved in the MECCA, I was the best line-drawer of them all.  I drew lines everywhere, I took a stand constantly – even in Youth Group (because nowhere was safe from the influence of evil)!  And I alienated myself from people.  Because I thought I was called to be a martyr.

Fast-forward five years, and I’m a very different person (and I blame a lot of this transformation on my pursuit of film).  I hate alienating myself from others.  Not that I’ve given up on figuring out what’s Good and what’s Bad.  But I think I am called to a redeemed life, not to a painful death.  And life consists of community (even God exists as a Trinity).  So I am much slower to withdraw from a group of people, even if they’re doing something I think is Bad.  (Honestly, I just want to be friends with everyone!)  And theoretically, I should be able to connect with everyone, right?  I don’t think any person is so lost that there is absolutely nothing to affirm in their hearts, to commune over and build identity over.  I now see more traces of God in people and ideas (and movies) than ever before – even in the “bad ones!” 

So I’ve gotten to the point where I’m wondering “what’s the point of drawing lines of demarcation in relationships?”  Is there ever a point where I have to walk away and say "Sorry, but I cannot be in relationship with you, because of this specific issue."

The thing is, ultimately, there is a line.  There is Right and there is Wrong.  There is Salvation and there is Damnation.  That’s why we draw lines.  The problem is, I’m not sure the little mundane lines we draw are always legitimate descendents of The Eternal Line.  And it’s dangerous to give illegitimate degenerates the full weight of The Eternal Line.  It can crush people.  Besides, what if The Eternal Line isn’t actually a line at all?   

A line implies dualism:  God and Not-God.  But if we want to maintain that God created the universe and is sovereign (however you define that), then we can’t affirm dualism.  Evil is not the opposite of good, it’s the decay of good.  Just as a lie usually has a bit of truth it in, so evil contains a little bit of good.  But lines can’t recognize an amalgamation.  They can't see the tiny bits of good in the bad, they can only write it off as "outside the fence."  And so lines put up blinders, restricting our ability to see God at work in the world.

Maybe we should stop drawing so many lines.  Or at least recognize that our lines are not always off-shoots of The Eternal Line.  Maybe we should admit that we don’t see too well in the grey areas of life.  Maybe we should allow more room for grace and the movement of the Spirit.

The Hollywood Holy Man

My sister likes Drama.  I like Action.  She hates Action and I hate Drama.
It's difficult to be movie-watching buddies.

At my house, the Friday Night Movie is practically an institution.  An immovable law of nature, a non-negotiable ritual, to be observed for all eternity.  Part of its sacredness derives from the fact that the Parental Units did not allow the watching of movies any other night of the week.  (TV was strictly prohibited every night of every week, plus the antenna had been removed before we were born.)  Therefore, the Friday Night Movie was not taken lightly.  Even now, we kids continue to observe the Friday Movie Night tradition.  As they say, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is older he will salivate at the sound of a bell.”

So a few FMN’s ago, my sister and I watched a film called "Traitor,” which features the fabulously soulful Don Cheadle and the strikingly fierce Guy Pearce (heh, faux-pun).  ‘Tis a very tense and engaging movie, filled with strong religious/political undertones, and characters with lots of secrets.  Aka I loved it.

Cheadle portrays a devout Muslim who's working with a Jihadist cell, despite his strong sense of conscience.  Pearce portrays the FBI agent who’s tracking him, in an effort to stop a major terrorist attack.  The interesting part is watching a very conflicted Cheadle struggle with the concept of Jihad.  On the one hand, he’s the most committed Muslim you’d ever meet, and at the same time he has a tremendous respect for life and can’t fully condone the Jihadist way.   But neither the Jihadists nor the FBI are the forgiving type.  So he’s got to figure out a way to maintain his conscience before Allah, work with the Jihadists, stay ahead of the Feds, and basically avoid getting a bullet in the head without putting a bullet in someone’s head. [SPOILER ALERT:  About midway through, it’s revealed that Cheadle is working undercover to break up the Jihadist cell.  But his mission is so covert that not even the FBI knows about it.  The heat ratchets up when he’s forced to complete missions for the Jihadists in order to maintain his cover and carry out his ultimate mission.]

The point of the film, so to speak, is that true Muslims aren’t Jihadists, but humble, sacrificial, honorable people who affirm life and fear only Allah.  They aren’t afraid of death and may/may not know kung-fu.

Political and religious implications aside, I found this portrayal of a Muslim character intriguing.  Because, the thing is, I'm starting to recognize a pattern in how films portray spiritual heroes. In spite of Hollywood’s distaste for Christians/religious figures, it hasn’t completely thrown away the shaman archetype.  There’ve been a slew of spiritual heroes lately:  the missionary in 'Pirates of the Caribbean 4', the blind dude in "Book of Eli", and … er, I can’t recall any others off the top of my head.  But nevertheless, here are several noteworthy observations on Hollywood’s concept of a spiritual hero, as evidenced by Mr. Muslim, Sir Missionary, and Blind Dude:

1.   Code of Ethics. These guys got consciences; they live before God, not man.  Therefore, they always act honorably, regardless of (and usually in contrast to) their surroundings.  Which makes for good hero material, ‘cause these people are more than willing to stick to their guns and get themselves killed for something. 

2.   Compassion.  Although these people observe a strict moral code, they also exhibit great kindness towards their fellow man.  Mr. Muslim has “seen enough death to know the value of life.”  Sir Missionary explicitly pleads for mercy claiming, “… I see [the face of God] when compassion and mercy are shown in the face of great suffering.”  This is not your parent’s Inquisition.

3.   Allegiance to a larger system of faith.  They may be lonely little believers, but they’re not poached eggs, just making it up as they go along.  That is to say, they submit themselves to some sort of authoritative and codified belief system, or at the very least, a text.  Some overachievers like Blind Dude literally memorize the entire Scripture (not just John 11:35).  Plus, they religiously perform the rituals of the faith.  And apparently these rituals are sources of strength/renewal, and not repressive coping mechanisms.  Interesting. 

4.   Bold.  Because these guys know where they stand before God, they don’t fear death.  And they’re not afraid to speak the truth, calling out cowardice and selfishness.  They may be do-gooders, but they ain’t no pushover pansies.

5.   BA.  Apparently spiritual warriors are also kung-fu warriors.  Or at the very least they’re not pacifists.  Most of them shoot scary guns, do jujitsu, and swear occasionally (primarily to put ruffians in line).  They are, in two words, very BA.

With the exception of the last criterion, I’d have to say “Not bad, Hollywood.”  This certainly isn’t Jesus-the-Action-Figure, but for a pop-culture version of a “holy man,” it’s not bad.  I really can’t quarrel with any of these qualities, except maybe the fifth one (I don’t approve of jujitsu)(just kidding, jujitsu is awesome)(it’s the swearing I might have a problem with).  But seriously, this is pretty good recipe for a spiritual hero. 

Except don’t non-spiritual heroes have a lot of these qualities too?  Standards of morality, compassion, boldness, total BAness.  Maybe not the “allegiance to a larger system of faith” part.  Hmm… so essentially what distinguishes a Religious Hero from a Generic Hero is the holy man’s connection to an established, defined, mystical Catechism. But I have to wonder if it’s a frail sort of Catechism, though, since the defining power behind all the swirling smoke and serene facial expressions (namely Allah, Jesus, whathaveyou) is rather undefined and overlooked in these films.  (And, yes, I realize this is bleeding into the religious implications.)  Despite featuring an overtly Muslim character, “Traitor” counterbalances the Islam element with Pearce’s character, the son of a Baptist minister.  He appeals to Cheadle, claiming to hail from a similar heritage.  Er, what?  Likewise, in “Book of Eli,” the Bible is eventually shelved next to the Qur’an and the Torah.  Which is a fabulous use of the Dewey Decimal system, but a rather unsatisfying ending after watching Blind Dude transport, protect, and ingest the Bible for 60+ minutes.  And it makes me wonder which voice was in his head, guiding him along.  I’d assumed it was the Holy Spirit, but apparently not.  Allah?  Elohim?  The Universe?  Beuhler?  *Sigh*  Good ol’ Hollywood, neutering all systems of faith in one fell swoop. 

Anywho, it’ll be interesting to see if this Holy Hero trend continues.  Given that Sir Missionary’s last moment on-screen  featured him being dragged underwater by the Love of his Life, he clearly has a sequel coming in 'Pirates 5.'  Therefore, his character (not to mention his relationship with Ms. Mermaid) will have to be further developed.  My crystal ball predicts that the next movie will downplay his missionary-ness and up-play his heartthroby-ness.  Oh goodness.  *Sigh*  *Flutter-flutter*  (That was a sigh of disappointment, accompanied by fluttering eyelashes.)

On the other hand, perhaps the filmmakers were insinuating that he's going to drown.

In which case his next moment on-screen will be his arrival at the Pearly Gates (which would definitely be the apex of a spiritual hero's journey).  Or Mr. Missionary could wake up on a sandy beach, miraculously alive (another highlight in the career of a spiritual hero).  Guess we'll have to wait until 2013 to find out if his character is ultimately "hot" or "holy."

More on Marketing

My "Director of Communications" ID photo.  Yes, this was posted in public.  For a year. 

Writing the Sweet Pepper Panini post dredged up memories of my year-long stint as Marketing Director for a campus events organization.  There were four of us heading up the organization; three event directors plus me.  We were a great team, obviously.  My job consisted of designing and executing month-long ad campaigns for each of their events.  I managed a team of volunteers who did a lot of the actual production work.  Embarrassing confession:  I didn't create any of the posters we hung.  I didn't even hang them up.  I just oversaw all the people who did that.  Don't judge; you have no idea how astronomically all-consuming management work is.  But I'm digesting.  And digressing. 

Anyways, as Director of Communications, I learned several interesting little things about marketing, and at the end of the year, I transcribed each of those little jewels of wisdom into a handbook for my successor.  It ended up being a 15 page manuscript.  Awesome.  I hope it gets read by at least one person someday.  Maybe I'll pass it on to my children, like an inheritance or something ... sorry, digressing again. 

One of these supposed gems was the concept of "branding," the crafting of a positive image or brand.  Also known as the prompting of subconscious visions of unicorns/Lamborghini's/happiness within the mind of anyone who encounters our logo.  Here's a censored version of what I wrote about "branding" in my book of wisdom: 

Advertising is not just about getting people to attend SAC events; it’s also about building up a good name for SAC on campus.  This is called branding, the crafting of a positive image or brand. 

Ergo, the second goal of SAC advertising is to be so awesome that whenever a student encounters a SAC ad, they immediately RECOGNIZE it as a SAC ad and ASSOCIATE happy things with the SAC ad.

Positive association is accomplished either by the popularity of SAC events or by the popularity of the SAC ads themselves.  As Director of Communications, you don’t have much control over the popularity of the events, but you do have control over the popularity of the ads.  If SAC ads are always clean-cut, graphically appealing, and accurate, then students will begin to view SAC as a clean-cut, appealing, and on-top-of-it organization. Seriously, people, you're reading this blacked-out stuff?

The quality of the product was out of my control.  But the quality of the ad was within my control.  So I  concentrated my positive-association-building efforts on the ads themselves.  In retrospect, I think I was following the Geico model, in which ads resemble SNL sketches more than standard product-based PR.  Essentially, the marketing becomes a product to be "bought" (so to speak) alongside the actual product/service.  This is a very interesting marketing phenomenon, and it's picked up a lot of speed lately, judging by the popularity of the Geico gecko.

My question is:  is this a more honest way to do marketing?  Is it better for marketers to openly acknowledge that they're creating an attractive but essentially fake perception, and therefore abandon any attempt at product-relevance?

Maybe that's being too radical ... but seriously, I would appreciate any commercial that's like, "Hey, pay attention to us!  Not because this cereal is awesome ('cause let's be honest, it's decent stuff but it's not The Most Awesome Oat-Based-Mush Deal of the Millienium, so let's not lie and call it that).  Instead pay attention because we are funny!!  Hahaha!!!  Thank you for giving us your time/attention; here's a clip of a cute kitten, with a sarcastic punchline to boot.  Thank you, come again!  And if you ever can't decide which brand of equally adequate cereal to buy, kindly think of us." 

One more thought:  this whole Random Commercial plot is like watching a DVD in which the audio is off by a few seconds.  It totally calls attention to the fact that you're not actually on the ship with the pirates; you're just watching a movie about pirates.  A pirated movie about pirates, probably.  Film is such a  facade.  Marketing too.

I'm not saying it's all a lie.  I'm just saying that marketing, like a photograph, is never the actual object itself.  It's a recreation of the object.  A representation.  Which means, no matter how honest you are, you're never going to 100% accurately represent the object.  No matter what angle you shoot the photo from, you will always be bound to a singular perspective - the lens frame.  That doesn't mean marketing/photography/representation is inherently evil (contrary to whatever Plato may have said in Book X of The Republic).  It just means that it's limited.  And so "accuracy" is a super nebulous criterion to judge by.  Therefore; crazy piknicked photos (aka random but terribly funny commercials) would seem to be an equally valid advertising technique.

In a way, entertaining commercials provide a free service to the public.  You do something kind for a stranger, hand him your business card at the end and walk away, no pressure.  Maybe he'll look you up later, maybe he won't.  Either way he got a good chuckle and you got exposure.

Oh my goodness.  I just realized that this "new," "revolutionary," "never-before-seen type of advertising" is actually ... just another very sneaky form of PR.  (Public Relations defined as slapping a logo on something - anything - and then giving that something away to the masses.)  No, nonononono...

*internal mental explosion, like in Inception*
*wreckage/debris reigns down*
*hand emerges from beneath the rubble, salesperson crawls out*

Anyone wanna' buy my handbook?

Anyone wanna' read my handbook?

The Sweet Pepper Panini

Introducing "Chili," the Barbie that will teach kids everywhere to enjoy spicy foods of all kinds.  Remember, you heard it here first.

Sweet Pepper Panini.  That was today’s lunch special at the coffee shop.  I sold loads of the delicious things.   Here's a reenactment of the lunch hour:

Customer walks in.  I bound up to the service counter:  “Hi there!  What can I get for ya’?”  Customer realizes our menu is quite large and the font is quite small.  Fumbles with words.   

    “Uh, I think I’m going to need a minute.”  I slowly back off, still smiling.   

    “That’s fine, and we do have a special today, the Sweet Pepper Panini.”  I wave my hand towards the white board.  Their eyes lock in on the slightly larger handwriting of the Specials Board.  They step closer.

    “What’s a Sweet Pepper Panini?”  I quickly glance at the description on the board:  Cream Cheese, Peppers, Cheddar Cheese.  My inner chef screams “Mucho muy delicioso!!”  But how to express that in English?  

    “Well, it’s a Panini, so it’s on Foccacia, which is this really hearty, soft bread brushed with basil and olive oil.  And then we spread cream cheese on the inside and sprinkle some basil on it, and stuff it full of sweet peppers and cheddar cheese, and then grill it up.”  Blink innocently at customer.  Customer smiles, relieved.

    “Ok, that sounds good.  Yeah, I’ll do that!”  I grin and traipse over to the register.  

    “Alrighty, that’ll be 7.21, sir.”   

Boom.  Bam.  Done.  The funny thing is I unequivocally hate peppers.  All types, all forms, all colors.  Even tried one today, just to make sure.  The test results came back Negative Infinity.  

However … this sandwich is seriously appealing to me.  It just sounds so creamy, so crisp, so fresh!  But I know I would hate it.  So I indulge vicariously through my words.   Which works well for business, I guess.  Because sometimes it’s not about selling the sandwich, it’s about selling the idea of the sandwich.  

When I was younger, I used to hate Sloppy Joes.  And to this day, I’m still not a huge fan of them.  However, I distinctly remember playing with my Barbie dolls and thinking “Sloppy Joes are just awesome.”  I’m not sure how or why I got this idea, but it was somehow connected to my Barbie’s yellow Sloppy Joe Maker.  As Barbie served up Sloppy Joes under my direction, I realized that Sloppy Joes were actually pretty cool.  So I asked Mom to make them for dinner.  She was shocked.  But she agreed.  (What kind of mom wouldn’t agree to make a cheap, easy, all-American meal like that, especially when it was her Picky-Eater who requested it?)

The next day while she made dinner, I played “Sloppy Joe” with Barbie and fanaticized over how awesome dinner was going to be.  Never mind that I had hated the taste, the texture, and the color of Sloppy Joes for years.  Not to mention the smell.  But I ignored all of this, and sat down for dinner, fork in hand.  (Well, not literally, because you don’t eat Sloppy Joes with forks, but ya' know what I mean.)  

It only took four bites to remind me why Sloppy Joes are not awesome.  

But I continued to think they were a nice idea.  Romantic, even.  Which made it easier to become a Joe-eater later in life, once we finally found a recipe I could handle.  Again, sometimes it’s about the idea of the sandwich, not the sandwich itself.  Basic marketing principle.

This makes me nervous because how many things have I bought (or ate) simply because I liked the mere idea of them?  How many marketing campaigns have I been a sucker for?  Am I completely delusional about my life, do I truly like what I think I like?  Or do I just like the idea of what I think I like?  What if I don’t actually like coffee, but I just like the idea of being a mature adult who drinks coffee?  What if I subconsciously hate set life, but have convinced myself its cool because it’s part of the film industry?  What if single-shot lattes are just a placebo (and actually don’t give me a caffeine boost) and all my self-restraint against the Venti White Mochas has been in vain?  What if I’m ADOPTED?!?!?!  Needless to say, the paranoia escalates quickly. 

Until I remember the disgusting pepper I ate this afternoon.  Thank the garden gnomes, a touchstone on reality!  I guess that makes the pepper my totem.  Same with the Sloppy Joe I ate when I was nine. 

Because underneath the ideas and the fantasies and the marketing campaigns are the taste buds.  I know when I hate something and I know when I love something.  Everything else is middle ground, and I’ll leave it to the commercials to do battle there.  After all, I enjoy a good show, a good yarn, a good fairytale.  So, go ahead, Marketers, try to sell me something I don’t really care about.  I’m settled on what I do care about, and I don’t mind being entertained over the rest of it.

(Plus, I'm kind of miserly with my money, heh-heh!)