or
Further Thoughts on the Zombie Apocalypse
Thanks to +Alpha Bovine and his rabid fanity, I did get through season two of The Walking Dead. Just in case you were wondering (unlikely), they did find the girl at long freaking last. She was a zombie after all. Surprise surprise.
Yes, more thoughts related to TWD. Whilst talking over the show with another rabid fan, a larger topic floated to the surface, and since it is related to current issues, I realized I should probably figure out what I thought about it. As far as I can recall, one bit of our conversation went something like this:
Me: The "moral dilemmas" in TWD are totally fake. There's no real tension at all.
Rabid Fan: What? Which ones?
Me: Like when Rick is trying to decide whether to kill that kid or not. You know, kill the kid, or let the kid bring his group of thugs to the farm?
Rabid Fan: Seriously? You mean if you were in a situation where someone was coming after your family, you wouldn't do everything you could to protect them?
After some wrangling in which I came out rather wrangled, I gave it some more thought and decided that as far as the legality/morality of self-defense (or defense of loved ones) is concerned, it boils down to a question of dilemma. What exactly is at stake?
Him or Me
Scripture cites examples in which people lawfully killed other people in order to defend themselves or others: for instance, Moses kills an Egyptian to defend a Hebrew slave (Exodus 2:11-12), and Mordecai sends out an edict allowing the Jews to rally against the Persians to save their own and their children’s lives (Esther 8:10-12). My exegetical skillz are certainly not the best, and I'm sure there are better examples, but since neither Moses nor Mordecai was punished or reprimanded for these acts, I think the point stands. In addition, Exodus 22:2 states the issue explicitly:"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him.”
For Moses, the dilemma is "Will you kill X, or let X harm/kill Y?" Similarly, for Mordecai the dilemma is "Will you allow X to kill Y, or allow Y to kill X?" What is at stake here? Not your reputation, your faith, your image (at least, not directly): your life, or the life of loved ones, or possibly your property. It is a "Him or Me" question, and the Exodus verse presents a key to the answer. When the dilemma is “This person will kill/rob/harm you/your loved ones unless you can kill him first,” killing him first is not a sin. There is no bloodguilt for straightforward self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property. It's okay for the "Him or Me," "Him or My Family," "Him or My House" choices to end badly for "Him." Hooray for the 2nd Amendment, and all that.
Christ or Me
However, there are also situations where it would appear that killing in self-defense is not okay. For example, Stephen allows the Pharisees to stone him without lifting a finger (Acts 7:58-60). Other martyrs allowed themselves and their families to be killed in countless terrible ways; Jesus himself allowed others to torture and kill him without even getting angry. What’s the difference between these situations and the first ones? From what I can tell, the dilemma itself has changed.
Suppose a gunman runs into a room full of people and says, “Hey you, kill the old lady or I start with the pregnant women.” What is at stake here? The dilemma is no longer "Him or me." The dilemma is now “You sin horribly, or I’ll sin horribly.” Somebody is going to sin horribly, and it shouldn’t be you. Here your faith in and obedience to Christ are at stake, and if you refuse to kill the old lady and Crazy Guy starts shooting the pregnant women, you have not sinned - he has. That’s where Stephen and the martyrs come in; they had a choice between denying Christ and His commandments or denying themselves and their loved ones, and they chose to deny themselves. Another way to put it is in terms of obedience: they had a choice between obeying either Christ or "the gunman," and they chose to obey Christ.
This should be the outcome whether Christ himself is in question (as with Stephen), or "just" his commandments. It's easy to think that the stakes are lower if someone is not explicitly saying "Deny Christ or I kill you." What if instead they're saying, "Just make a sacrifice to Caesar. Just toss a little incense. Make a short prayer. Your children are surely worth that." The serpent didn't go up to Eve and say "Disobey God or I kill you." He said, "Just eat the fruit. God couldn't really have said that. It can't really be that big a deal." The world wants to downplay the choice, disguise the dilemma; but every choice it gives us is is some form of "Christ or Me." And when it's "Christ or me," we should be giving ourselves the short straw - not him. Obedience isn't optional. It's not that we take up our crosses and follow Christ unless some crazy gunman runs into a crowded room. We don't obey his commandments until our reputation, image, lives, loved ones are at stake. There are no provisos or exceptions. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Period. Statement. End of sentence.
Thankfully, Jesus doesn't stop there. He adds, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be with you" (John 14:16-17). Suppose you have a crazy gunman situation: you aren't facing it alone. Suppose a bunch of Nazis run into your house and order you to tell them where you're hiding the Jews: the Spirit is there. Suppose you're told to shut up about Jesus in your professional life, or that if you refuse to work on Sundays you're lessening your chances for a good job, or that if you voice your opinions against gay marriage your political career is over: Christ has not abandoned you. "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (I Cor 10:13).
Suppose a gunman runs into a room full of people and says, “Hey you, kill the old lady or I start with the pregnant women.” What is at stake here? The dilemma is no longer "Him or me." The dilemma is now “You sin horribly, or I’ll sin horribly.” Somebody is going to sin horribly, and it shouldn’t be you. Here your faith in and obedience to Christ are at stake, and if you refuse to kill the old lady and Crazy Guy starts shooting the pregnant women, you have not sinned - he has. That’s where Stephen and the martyrs come in; they had a choice between denying Christ and His commandments or denying themselves and their loved ones, and they chose to deny themselves. Another way to put it is in terms of obedience: they had a choice between obeying either Christ or "the gunman," and they chose to obey Christ.
This should be the outcome whether Christ himself is in question (as with Stephen), or "just" his commandments. It's easy to think that the stakes are lower if someone is not explicitly saying "Deny Christ or I kill you." What if instead they're saying, "Just make a sacrifice to Caesar. Just toss a little incense. Make a short prayer. Your children are surely worth that." The serpent didn't go up to Eve and say "Disobey God or I kill you." He said, "Just eat the fruit. God couldn't really have said that. It can't really be that big a deal." The world wants to downplay the choice, disguise the dilemma; but every choice it gives us is is some form of "Christ or Me." And when it's "Christ or me," we should be giving ourselves the short straw - not him. Obedience isn't optional. It's not that we take up our crosses and follow Christ unless some crazy gunman runs into a crowded room. We don't obey his commandments until our reputation, image, lives, loved ones are at stake. There are no provisos or exceptions. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Period. Statement. End of sentence.
Thankfully, Jesus doesn't stop there. He adds, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be with you" (John 14:16-17). Suppose you have a crazy gunman situation: you aren't facing it alone. Suppose a bunch of Nazis run into your house and order you to tell them where you're hiding the Jews: the Spirit is there. Suppose you're told to shut up about Jesus in your professional life, or that if you refuse to work on Sundays you're lessening your chances for a good job, or that if you voice your opinions against gay marriage your political career is over: Christ has not abandoned you. "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (I Cor 10:13).
Apply Liberally to Zombie TV
This is why the "dilemmas" in TWD are fake, much like the ones in The Hunger Games. The story tellers do not understand the difference between "Him and me" and "Christ and me," or the fact that there is always a way of escape in temptation. (Even if they did, they would not understand choosing "Christ" and not "me.") Therefore, they have set events up so that there appears to be no difference and no escape. Though it’s not always a life-or-death decision, it often is. Kill the little blond kid, Katniss, or he’ll kill little Rue. Leave the stupid hick on the roof, T-Dog, or the others will leave you for the zombies. Kill the helpless kid in cold blood, Rick, or he could tell his group where your family is. Because these choices are often mixed in with "legitimate" self-defense moments, it’s easy for a watcher to go with the flow and not realize what’s happening. Sometimes we get a clue (like Rick’s wishy-washy “I’m going to kill him. Wait no that’s wrong. Wait no I have to. Wait no I can’t.”), but it's clear that he's swinging in the wind because his moral compass is null and void. It doesn’t point north because he doesn’t believe that north exists. If you don't believe in Christ, there is no "Christ or me" dilemma. There's just this vague notion that somehow it's not kosher, and Dale’s arguments about the group “going rotten” and “losing its humanity.” And without the possibility of "choosing" Christ, you have no basis for making a choice in any other dilemma - it just boils down to whatever you feel like doing.
To Gather Up The Crumbs...
Self-defense is great. Owning guns is great. I am totally okay with shooting potential robbers/rapists/murderers. Count me in. Two (opposable) thumbs up. But when the dilemma changes, when someone draws a line and asks you to abandon either Christ or your family/friends/fellow men, with whom should you stick? Applying that choice to everyday situations (not just the life-and-death ones) is the constant Christian challenge - it's where sanctification comes in, and where it's so good to remember that "Whoev
er loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matt. 16:25), and "Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life” (Matt. 19:29).
Who else gives out promises like that?
Nobody.
Just saying.
