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."