The Agony and the Epiphany

"As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world." - John 17:18

"And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one..." (v.22)

An experience a Christian should encounter at some point is a crisis in one's life when a decision means a conflict of feeling. One day there will be a drive and will to do something that both has the potential to bring great joy and repute and at the same time great suffering and infamy. It is a decision of the cross, and a decision to live like Christ.

When the tears flow from a knowing heart and you wrestle with the fear of never gripping the peace you thought you once had, you will also know then that all powers of earthly life and death cannot wrangle from you the greatest joy and hope you have ever experienced in mortal life.

You will know the awful thing that is to come and you know that your loving Father knows; but that will not stop
the agony
and the epiphany
of eternal glory

A Communique from Zombieland

Zombieland (2009) is, suffice to say, not a family film; but I was struck by its surprising moral undercurrent. In the last ten years or so, the idea of zombie hordes overrunning the planet has achieved greater cultural interest in North America. The numerous films, varying in budget, have captured the imagination of especially teenagers and twenty somethings. I can't give you any great stats to back up this claim, its just something I've been noticing over the years and I am willing to bet you have too...if you at all have any interest in the horrific idea of undead zombie hordes devouring the living; and not just in film.

In fact, some books have detailed with meticulous interest and disturbing, albeit fictional, hypothetical accuracy, tongue in cheek scenarios for survival ("Zombie Survival Guide") and worldwide catastrophe ("World War Z"). Marvel Comics has released zombie themed issues, and Jane Austen's (1775-1817) Pride and Prejudice (1813) has been parodied in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2009).

I'm not sure about this next claim, but it would seem to me that zombification of the entire world is being given far more careful attention, detail and marketing than the classic 'B' movies of yesteryear. Maybe you horror buffs can correct me if I'm wrong.

Zombie films I have seen have a strong moral (or rather amoral) undertone. A world overrun by zombies is a world that has totally lost its "humanity". Nobody is innocent, nothing is sacred, survival is everything. The moral dilemmas presented by wasting zombies who were formerly family members or those commonly regarded as "the innocent" of society is frequently an issue; (as well as an excuse to create some dramatic tension).

Ironically, the greatest threat to survival comes not from the zombie hordes, but from the fellow living. (SPOILERS AHEAD) George A Romero's Dawn of the Dead (1978) illustrates this by the scavenging gang of thugs which finally dismantle the relative safety and comfort of survivors holed up in a shopping mall. In Zombieland, betrayal is commonplace, though the zombies themselves pose marginal threat themselves to intelligent and sensibly cautious wanderers.

Concurrently, both films contain radical critiques of the stupidity and emptiness of material culture. Woody Harrelson's character craves a Twinkie snack cake but in a world of endless material goods he is willing to smash anything to curb his frustrations. In "Dawn of the Dead" the zombies putter stupidly around the mall doing as they had done as the living. What results is a thinly veiled but powerful critique of consumerism. In a world of survival, the stuff of great worth is utterly devalued and rendered comically meaningless.

The zombie phenomenon is worth great cultural examination: it is a symbol of the current 20th-21st century post-modern wasteland in which we live. It is the nihilism after the great failure of secular existentialism to re-value all values. It's cynicism is the bitter but sober and truthful disbelief of the humanist hucksters who would sell us false bases for our, or nature's supposed intrinsic worth.

The zombie wasteland takes no prisoners. There is no rank, no wealth, no great hero, but simply a tragic-comical waste of human life and existence combined with wanton bloodshed. The shotgun and chainsaw become the weapons of a generation frustrated, bored and only too eager to take up arms to a worthy cause- so long as it is not classified as murder (killing the living).

But zombie films are also about re-discovery - and redemption. In "Zombieland", "28 Days Later" (2002) and "Dawn of the Dead" we see people banding together. In a world that no longer has the blind optimism of modernism, but has seen the ugliness of blind postmodernism, human relationships and the spiritual moral law seem to pop up with new strength. One can bury the dead, but one can't bury what isn't dead. What isn't dead is the human spirit, absolute moral law and the drive to selfless deeds. Where "Columbus" in Zombieland formerly had a personal survival law to "Don't be a hero" he realizes that to save the emo-hot chick and forsake his "World of Warcraft" dominated life, he must adapt and overcome, he must "Be a hero". Where formerly the party knew only cutthroat cold indifference, they learned to band together as family.

No zombie film I know ends with a perfect fairy tale ending, there is one bloody awful mess left in the wake of the metaphorical "disaster" (postmodern death, nuclear annihilation, new world order etc.). This is an ugly world. It is bloody, it is sexually perverse and violating, it is horrific, and full of demonic threats.

The hard but necessary realization? We have done it. The good news? Not even the age of "non-supernatural" zombies (zombies resulting from viruses or some even more ridiculous nonsense than the occult explanation) can eradicate the supernatural order underlying all things.

The message is, don't let yourself be found as the walking dead; in the words made famous by one zombie smasher, "Hail to the King baby."

Taking a Chance on a Crutch

"I've read your book and you have some serious character flaws."  Perhaps you've heard this kind of thing before.

Externalization happens when somebody refuses to take words to heart. It is a defense mechanism, indicative of cowardice (perhaps resulting from wounding); a mind that cannot accept correction because it is afraid it will break. That mind has already made an idol of itself: that it cannot rely on any Other but itself. But of course, we need each other.

So when the words come that must be internalized, in advanced cases a thickened membrane has formed over the brain that bounces back the message in the form of an attack on the source, the idea and/or blame laying of the problem to anywhere but self. (N.B. :This too can work in reverse in the "I am to blame because I secretly think that I should be able to do it all" paradigm)

The inward message is also likely to cause offense, because hey, how dare you even suggest that I am wrong? I'm wise after all. I know what's really causing the problem: its you, and that other guy, my boss, my spouse, my girlfriend, my boyfriend, my church, my in laws, my family, my dog, and the bad latte I had this morning.

There are added complications of course. When we unreflectively start blaming other sources for our problems there are inevitable contradictions in our speech. In fact, it starts out as incongruities in our stories, but ends up being externally what it is internally: lying. If we lie to ourselves we will inevitably lie to others simply to avoid the conclusion that there's something wrong with us.

The incongruities I refer to are those things which we blame as the source of ills or possible ills. It is very easy to blame circumstances or states of affairs as the source of problems or failures. For example, one could say that it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Therefore, being rich equals trouble. This kind of thinking will lead one into trouble, because lacking riches, it could be argued sensibly, leads to stealing, marital breakup and other social vices, which also may in turn cost you your soul. In this case of course, I'm not advocating that we all become communists but I am saying that the source of the vice is not actually in the state of affairs, but in humanity itself. (Sorry communism, humanism)

The well adjusted person, perhaps the wise person we might say, is not the one who avoids every manner of circumstance that suggests trouble, but rather is well informed about what pressures situations can bring to bear upon his or her own faulty humanity. This is why proverbs can be antithetical; worldly wisdom is on a hinge, difficult situations swing upon a personality. The person who avoids every circumstance of danger (There is a lion in the street!) we would call a coward or a sluggard. The person who charges into every circumstance of danger we would call a fool. (I'm feeling like Aristotle right now)

Many will call this the virtue of the mean (or whatever those Greeks called it). But we could also call this mediocrity, and beyond that, what exactly determines when to be mean and when not to? (I like being mean. Whats wrong with that?)

Bringing around the discussion back to the unreflective person, you'll easily see now how these various do's and don'ts actually end up being a prison for many people. They not only cower in a self made cage of mediocrity, but they also make statements to different people at different times saying wildly different things. At first they are just incongruities, but if a person wisens up at all to the ludicrous swings of the self-hinge, eventually he will start lying to avoid admitting that he is the gatekeeper.

Now here's the point to really catch I think. In order to venture out into situations that endanger any normal human being in any number of ways (like motherhood, marriage, military or star trek conventions) you must have what the externalizing person does not: internal strength from reliance on an Other. The ability to venture out into danger corresponds to one's concept of personal security. For some people it is sheer delusion, "This will never happen to me" or "love conquers all" or "I have the speed and skills with nunchucks of Chuck Norris", but for everyone it comes down to what one trusts in to keep oneself safe.

There are a whole host of things that can make you feel assured of success, and just as there are many sensible things to avoid, there are many sensible things to remedy the ills. There's just one problem: sensible things aren't eternal things. They are quite literally not eternal because they are just that...sense-able.

I want to suggest, not so subtly, that you don't have to be afraid of anything or anybody if you have a personal eternal crutch. Personally, I am not ashamed to admit that I am so lame I stumble and fall like a drunken manatee when I attempt to walk on my own. I am ashamed however, when I walk out the door without the Crutch, believing I have healed myself.

It's okay though. After I clean up the blood, I remember that after I have suffered the disaster of death, I'll never be lame again.

you really must deal with the literature!

Do you ever find it funny when an author comments on another author for"not having adequately dealt" with some particular subject?

What I mean is, the writer being scrutinized sometimes has not "adequately dealt" with some subject because it was never a subject that needed or was intended to be dealt with. For example, one could commonly beg the question from Luther, whether he adequately showed what motivates a believer to live a holy life if he is covered by divine grace.

But this question is like so many others demanding 'effective treatment' of this or that; it reveals a mind captive to a smaller way of thinking- a mind that has never really engaged with the subject. And all at once, the book loses the greatest of all credits: demonstrable inward looking wisdom.

Sometimes, declaring that more explanation must be given is comical and self defeating; it is like asking a prisoner how in the world he will make a living if he loses his iron shackles.

Dealing with the literature is important; but dealing with oneself in relation to it is indispensable.