Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Jack is Back!

The opening scene of the new 24 season depicts Jack Bauer before a Senate Panel answering questions as to the legalities of the performance of his job. Bauer is known for breaking the laws to do his job when the law encumbers him from his mission. Just the same, Bauer is never cavalier towards the laws of the land. Such a statement seems contradictory. On the one hand, Bauer will break the law and on the other he upholds it with great passion. The reason he is able to do this is that he understands the reason for the laws are to protect individuals and the nation as a whole. However, when the law ceases to serve the purpose by which it was enacted it becomes an encumbrance and no longer a life giving protection. Thus, Bauer obeying a higher law understands that if he follows the law for the sake of the law the reason of the law is unfulfilled. But if he upholds the reason for the law more than the law itself he can do his job and protect the American people.


This idea is captured in National Treasure when Nicholas Cage’s character dialogs with Justin Bartha’s character standing before the Declaration of Independence in the Rotunda. Cage reads the famous line “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” At that moment, Cage realizes he must steal the Declaration of Independence in order to protect it. He was prepared to break the laws of the land in order to protect the history of the land. While it is debatable whether stealing can ever be a good idea, the point of this illustration is that there is something greater than the law of the land to which people appeal. The Founding Fathers presented the Declaration of Independence to the King of England appealing to a higher law of endowed rights by the Creator which were being usurped by the King giving them grounds to fight for their Independence.


I am reminded of when Jesus healed on the Sabbath and the Pharisees rebuked him for breaking the law of the Sabbath by working. The law, in their mind was about the law in and of itself. Jesus knew the law was there to give life not to take it away. Thus when He encountered a person needing healing he did not hesitate to give life for the law of the Sabbath was not really being broken for it was the Pharisees that misunderstood its purpose. It is so like man to corrupt something meant for good and change it to something causing bondage and legalism. Instead of seeing the laws as life giving protections, they saw them as restraints and rules that must be adhered to for their own sake thinking that by doing so it made them righteous. All throughout Scripture it is illustrated time and again that it is our assurance/faith in God that brings righteousness, not obedience to laws. This is why Jesus explained that love fulfills all of the law. For if one truly grasps what it means to love one another from a place of being filled with the Father’s love one is always life giving by nature and has no need to check a list of laws to guide their behavior.


The Founders understood this principal for they often wrote about the people of America being self-governed according to their faith in God and thereby not needing encumbering laws and legalized morality. Alexis De Tocqueville famously wrote that the strength of America was in her churches and that, America, as it stood then, could never be brought down by outside forces, and that her greatness could only diminish if her goodness found in the hearts of the American people diminished. “American will never cease to be great, unless America ceases to be good,” he wrote. The Founders were resolved that the Bible should never cease being taught in the American schools and they did not give the federal government power over education in America. It was not until the late 50’s and 60’s that all that changed and the federal government entered the school system causing the conflict of church and state.


Bauer stood resolutely before the Senate Panel confidently responding to their questions, his conscious clear for he had time and again protected the nation that now stood against him. However, before the hearing could even get started Bauer was called into action and whisked away by the FBI to enlist his service for his country. As the plot twist, he finds himself once again on the wrong side of the law albeit for the right reasons.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

"This is why Jesus explained that love fulfills all of the law."

How does it fulfill prohibitions on eating pork? I've asked you this before you and you couldn't answer it then, but yet you repeat your claim. Tsk tsk.

"The Founders understood this principal for they often wrote about the people of America being self-governed according to their faith in God and thereby not needing encumbering laws and legalized morality."

Which is why they created a completely secular government and a document derided as atheist by leading religious leaders of the time?

"The Founders were resolved that the Bible should never cease being taught in the American schools and they did not give the federal government power over education in America."

Which is why Jefferson and Madison abolished it in the schools in Virginia, right? Please study your history from somewhere other than Jack Chick tracks.

"It was not until the late 50’s and 60’s that all that changed and the federal government entered the school system causing the conflict of church and state."

Um, no, they righted the conflict that was happening, whereby the Bible was being taught by the state to students. Are you advocating that we should teach Xianity in schools?

CyberKitten said...

karla said: On the one hand, Bauer will break the law and on the other he upholds it with great passion.

So you think that its ok (or even possible) to break the law to uphold the law? Not in any *reasonable* legal system!

karla said: However, when the law ceases to serve the purpose by which it was enacted it becomes an encumbrance and no longer a life giving protection.

So... If a law no longer serves its purpose their is a procedure to either change the law od repeal the law - you just don't choose to *break* the law because you happen to disagree with it - or if you do you should be ready to deal with the consequences of your actions which would be illegal.

karla said: Thus, Bauer obeying a higher law understands that if he follows the law for the sake of the law the reason of the law is unfulfilled.

The problem with following a 'higher' law is *which* higher law? If their are many faiths and many variations of each faith then you would inevitably have many variations of 'higher' laws. Are you saying that all appeals to these 'higher' laws are ok or just *your* variation of 'higher' law?

karla said: But if he upholds the reason for the law more than the law itself he can do his job and protect the American people.

... nice to have that sort of power or that sort of delusion - that he can decide what is right for an entire country. Thankfully stuff like that only happens on TV or in the movies!

karla said: For if one truly grasps what it means to love one another from a place of being filled with the Father’s love one is always life giving by nature and has no need to check a list of laws to guide their behavior.

So... if you *honestly* believe you're living that... you can ignore *any* legal code? I have a feeling that most courts wouldn't agree [laughs]

karla said: As the plot twist, he finds himself once again on the wrong side of the law albeit for the right reasons.

..and that's all that counts... [rotflmao]

Karla said...

No I don't think I can avoid or ought to avoid the law of the land. I guess I botched in communicating what I was thinking. I think there can be isolated times where the law may be wrong and cannot be followed morally. Yes that law should be changed in time, but in the meantime I wouldn't do something that I believed to be immoral even if the law of the land required it of me. But I have not encountered a law in America as of yet that I can cite that has affected me that I would not follow.

I think I was more addressing the spirit of a law versus legalism in my post more so than giving license to break the laws.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: I think there can be isolated times where the law may be wrong and cannot be followed morally. Yes that law should be changed in time, but in the meantime I wouldn't do something that I believed to be immoral even if the law of the land required it of me.

You mean 'civil disobedience'? Yes, I can go along with that. You still need to accept the consequences of breaking the law though. After all it does apply to everyone - regardless of their beliefs.

karla said: I think I was more addressing the spirit of a law versus legalism in my post more so than giving license to break the laws.

What is and is not the law is decided in court. Laws are removed or re-written by Governments. If your defence (in court) is that you were applying the spirit of the law it is up to you to make your case to a judge & jury. The matter is for them to decide on.

Karla said...

Are you familiar with 24? Do you know the sort of thing Jack Bauer does and how he also takes responsiblity. I have always been impressed with his character on the show. I'm not sure if that show airs or is popular where you are.

I believe in respecting and keeping the laws of the land and respecting all those in authority. However, if the laws of the land are contrary to truth and the heart of God then I could not obey. If my government suddenly said it was illegal to own a Bible, I would not cease to own one.

If there is nothing by which the laws of the land gain relevance. Nothing stable on which they rest then there is no reason anyone "ought" to follow them. But because I believe that most such laws do rest upon a greater foundation of truth then I see them as of greater importance than just rules enacted by some justices or politicians.

Ali P said...

Karla said...
Are you familiar with 24? Do you know the sort of thing Jack Bauer does and how he also takes responsiblity. I have always been impressed with his character on the show. I'm not sure if that show airs or is popular where you are.

Yes, we do have cable :-)

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Are you familiar with 24? Do you know the sort of thing Jack Bauer does and how he also takes responsiblity.

I watched the first few episodes of the first series but quickly lost any interest I'm afraid...

karla said: I'm not sure if that show airs or is popular where you are.

Yes, it does air here and yes it is popular. It's just that I don't watch it - or much TV at all actually.

karla said: If my government suddenly said it was illegal to own a Bible, I would not cease to own one.

But you wouldn't expect to be exempt from the law though? You would keep the Bible and pay a fine? Or not pay the fine & go to jail? There should not be special cases where the law is concerned - either it applies to everyone or its a pretty wortless law.

karla said: If there is nothing by which the laws of the land gain relevance. Nothing stable on which they rest then there is no reason anyone "ought" to follow them.

I think that you are making the mistake again of thinking that rules must either be absolute AKA theistic (or have an absolute foundation) or alternatively be worthless or foundationless. This is not the case. Laws are often based on great *ideals* - such as a person is innocent until proven guilty. You don't need God to back this up - just a strongly held belief in (human) justice.

karla said: But because I believe that most such laws do rest upon a greater foundation of truth then I see them as of greater importance than just rules enacted by some justices or politicians.

So do I - we just disagree on what that 'greater foundation' is.....and no, I'm not being absolutist here [grin]

Karla said...

Cyber Kitten, I just watched a debate I have on DVD between Dawkins and John Lennox. I will be touching on your questions when I write out some thoughts from listening to Dawkins. I'll try and get to that in the next couple days.